2nd part: The fire in a theatre cliche isn't really true. There isn't really a broad "incitement" exception to freedom of speech / 1A. It's an out of context/

2nd part: The fire in a theatre cliche isn't really true. There isn't really a broad "incitement" exception to freedom of speech / 1A. It's an out of context/misunderstood quote from an old case. (And I want to say it wasn't even in a majority opinion, or something similar, that made it mostly irrelevant anyway.) Part of the reason being, no one can agree on what "incite" legally means. Which makes it a political question, in itself. People hear what they want to hear. I personally don't understand how anyone thinks that speech was inciting violence, unless they presume to think he meant something other than what he said. That's trying to mind read, not a legal standard. Basically, I disagree: it is a matter of political diversity. Even discussing the merits of executing someone, be it deathrow inmates or politicians. But the standards of trying to judge what's a dog whistle is a criminal matter, not a censorship one. Now, I'm not saying all speech, no matter what, should be left up in all circumstances. I am saying there needs to be a presumption of good intention, and lacking some form of legal process (a la evictions), platforms should not be able to take pre-emptive actions without meaningful consequences.