This is a perfect example of "be careful what you wish for". The Wired position seems to be "just put more resources into policing speech, which is a good and n

This is a perfect example of "be careful what you wish for". The Wired position seems to be "just put more resources into policing speech, which is a good and necessary activity". My hunch is that cases like these (false positives, at least, as currently judged by the current authorities) will proliferate just as the criteria for judging what constitutes unacceptable speech do. I would challenge the would-be censors to define specifically, in a way not requiring an additional consultation with them for more infusions of judgement, just what types of utterances that they want to suppress, and why. The closer one gets to this, the more the case for censorship will dissolve. Tl;dr: they are complaining about ambiguity in the implementation of the solution, while having failed to define the problem.