yeah, extremely conservative people don't see their talking points as being hateful, and instead see them as factual. (source: many, many former extreme conser

yeah, extremely conservative people don't see their talking points as being hateful, and instead see them as factual. (source: many, many former extreme conservative acquaintances and friends, also a lot of time in my youth spent in the armed services listening to the most vocally angry people.) they feel their opinions are being unfairly targeted because "snowflakes and princesses" (implying weak-minded people) view those talking points as hate speech, and hate speech is not covered by the first amendment of the US constitution. they view the "hate speech" label as a loophole around free speech guarantees, and they feel it is wielded solely by liberals, and solely to silence their perfectly valid conservative views. so, instead of understanding that reality might differ from their collective view of reality, two things which they view as being exactly equal, they instead attack what they view as the problem: unfair censorship. this ruling seems very likely to be based on this perspective, and if so, is intended to make the first amendment unenforceable in situations where moderation does not outright favor conservative viewpoints. conservatives of this extremity can't compete for mindshare based on their viewpoint, so they compete by changing the rules. this ruling goes against both the letter of the first amendment and the spirit of the first amendment.