All the "non-free-speech", "speech is violence" advocates here: Violence, call for violence against others, and crimes that happen to have a speech component t

All the "non-free-speech", "speech is violence" advocates here: Violence, call for violence against others, and crimes that happen to have a speech component to them, are NOT protected by the first amendment. Threats against individuals and CP very much fall under crimes, and they have ZERO protection under free speech. > If you want to make the case for no censorship at all then you need to use the most extreme examples of what will be shared and consumed because that's what will happen No free speech advocate worth their salt EVER demanded anything illegal to not be censored, including threats, CP, etc. Absolutely no one should entrust private corporations with the power to decide what is and isn't extreme, or acceptable speech. Because it will immediately be abused (as is happening right now) to censor speech that companies, mostly based in left leaning blue cities with, overwhelming employee bases leaning towards one ideology (hint: left), to spread their worldview to the REST of the world. US law sets clear definitions on free speech, and is a lot more reliable than the "moral" compass of a few individuals at companies. For instance, the very legal and harmless "learn to code" meme was only considered offensive by a very small monitory of silicon valley Twitter censors, but anyone who tweeted that got an immediate temporary suspension.