You've missed the context that the "shoe" in the metaphor is the act of justifying politically motivated censorship by referencing public safety. Obviously bomb

You've missed the context that the "shoe" in the metaphor is the act of justifying politically motivated censorship by referencing public safety. Obviously bomb threats aren't protected speech and I've yet to see an instance of anyone of any political persuasion publicly defending them. > There has to be a will to prosecute. This is nowhere near being followed in each instance where it should. If a stranger who reads your comment later goes on to make a death threat towards a district attorney who doesn't prosecute, should you be censored or prosecuted for what they interpreted as an implicit call for extra-judicial violence? Once you legitimize the power to infer hidden incitements to violence in ordinary speech, that power will eventually be captured by your worst enemy and used against you.