> The real problem is determining whether content is "legal" without actually going through a legal process That's not the real problem. We deal with this prob

> The real problem is determining whether content is "legal" without actually going through a legal process That's not the real problem. We deal with this problem every time in our legal system and we've developed the so called "prima facie" evidence or rulings, that seek to minimize immediate harm. If a policeman sees a guy wielding an axe chasing someone and shouting "Come here you mother fucker!", the policeman can't just go on his way saying <<Well, a crime was not yet committed and "Come Here" is not really a threat>>. There is prima facie evidence of an aggression and he has immediate authority to arrest the assailant for a limited time, and then justice can run its course. What the law does here is to reassert the content moderators' authority to recognize and act on prima facie illegal speech. We can debate on far that authority should go and the specifics, but there is nothing wrong in principle with this approach to law making, and it's used in many other fields.