The law is not 'free speech without limits.' There are lots of types of illegal speech, many of them much less exciting than incitement. Practically, it can be

The law is not 'free speech without limits.' There are lots of types of illegal speech, many of them much less exciting than incitement. Practically, it can be difficult to bring court cases related to every potential violation of the law related to speech as it relates to online platforms. This is partly a practical issue. Due process is expensive, and only the courts can provide due process adequately. When it becomes very cheap to violate the law and remains expensive to enforce the law, obviously we see a lot of lawbreaking ensue. The solution ought not to be to sweep away the First Amendment, but to do a combination of things that: 1. Makes it feasible to enforce the law on internet speech when and where it applies 2. Go enforce that law The First Amendment exists in a context of assumed liability for publishers. This may have been more practical when there aren't that many publishers. When there are $billions of publishers, the deterrent impact of liability fear just isn't there. Regulation is also an alternative to making law enforcement more practical and affordable. If you don't want to expend the resources prosecuting every violation of the law, you have to take some proactive steps to manage the environment to reduce potential violations. This is why you have the FCC regulating content on broadcast media, for example.