> But also yes to the cops arresting a kid who posts on social media that he’s gonna kill all his classmates tomorrow morning.
I think that everyone (yes, literally everyone) would agree that direct incitements and threats of violence such as this would be fine to censor and deal with appropriately. As a free speech advocate, I know a lot of folks with free speech absolutist views yet I don’t know a single person who’d be against any of that.
The reality though is that, in practice, these extreme examples tend to be used to justify censorship only to end up making the rules vague and subjective enough that, sooner or later, folks start being censored for wrongthink.
Also, “moderation” is just a soft term for censorship.
People make vague and non-serious advocations for inequality and non-freedom all the time and it's not really that serious. For example saying on social media that some politician is a criminal and should be locked up. It has to be OK to discuss political ideas, even in the form of "I think we should..." (advocating) rather than "what if we did...?" (not advocating).
You need moderation both ways.
Yes to the First.
But also yes to the cops arresting a kid who posts on social media that he’s gonna kill all his classmates tomorrow morning.
Bonus points if the cops arrest him before he goes to school tomorrow.
Couching threats of violence in political language shouldn’t change anything in that regard.
(Well, it does these days. But it shouldn’t. That’s how you get kids gunned down at prayer.)
Anyway, bottom line is, adherence to the First doesn’t mean we abandon law enforcement, or military sense.