> If you only allowed the speech you didn’t have a problem with, then you wouldn’t need the concept of free speech. Setting the threshold for "problem" at inte

> If you only allowed the speech you didn’t have a problem with, then you wouldn’t need the concept of free speech. Setting the threshold for "problem" at intent to cause physical harm to others seems a pretty low barrier? Any barking is ok, but swift actions should be taken immediately after the very first bite. Stepping away from calls to murder people for a moment. You can deny climate change all you want but once you put your words into actions that destroy planet your speech can now be treated as actions.