So they can tiptoe around exact instructions and say "watch this and then decide what punishment you should inflict" ? Now you're starting to shade things into

So they can tiptoe around exact instructions and say "watch this and then decide what punishment you should inflict" ? Now you're starting to shade things into a gray area. At some point you need a judge or jury to decide whether speech is incitement to violence or not. And I don't believe the video in question is (even obliquely) advocating any particular action. It's just grossly offensive to some people. Why are people picking youtube videos as freedom-of-speech and not the right to joke about their suitcase being a bomb to the TSA at the airport? Why is that censorship okay and not youtube? Like your other examples of falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater or threatening the President, there are certain forms of "expression" that can be restricted or punished, not because they're expressing particular ideas, but because they have a direct, causal connection to harm. You can come up with a thousand examples: It's not "free speech" for a doctor to write you a prescription for a lethal dose of a drug. It's not "free speech" for a police officer to tell you you're obligated to talk to him without a lawyer. It's not "free speech" to lie on the witness stand. "Free speech" doesn't mean you can't be punished or restricted from saying anything, but it does mean that absent any direct harm to the rights of others, you're free to express ideas in any reasonable manner. This shouldn't be too hard to understand.