While that's definitely an important concern, it is already true that there are things you're not allowed to say. Things that hurt people, like libel/slander, t

While that's definitely an important concern, it is already true that there are things you're not allowed to say. Things that hurt people, like libel/slander, threats, blackmail, shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater. So why is some speech that hurts people banned, while other speech that hurts people is allowed? This should be the test for what counts as hate speech. Can you call the press "the enemy of the people" if that leads to journalists getting hurt? Can you call certain demographic groups a threat to society if that leads people to take action against those groups? Is it only the people who stormed the Capitol who are guilty of that, or also the politicians and others who encouraged them? There is always going to be some limit to free speech. The question is: is that line in the right place? Does it need to be moved one way or the other? Does it allow speech that endangers lives? Does it ban speech that doesn't? That has to be a constant evaluation. (That said, I regret banning communication apps. I'd rather see people be held accountable for the things they say on those apps. By the law, not by corporations.)