I understand this is a sensitive topic for you. The root comment (by your comment's parent commenter) did say that "advocating for direct physical violence" sh

I understand this is a sensitive topic for you. The root comment (by your comment's parent commenter) did say that "advocating for direct physical violence" should be the exception to free speech. And more generally, incitement to crime/violence is generally accepted as the exception to the rule by people who advocate for free speech. That said, I'm sympathetic to the notion that some people can perceive even speech that isn't outright threatening violence as an implied threat, so I understand that it's a complex issue. I do think the parent commenter was inflammatory, so please don't think I'm defending everything they said.