[rrego]

Yes free expression obviously does have limits; It probably doesn't have that silly "Fire in a theater" restriction.

Holmes (the supreme court justice you are quoting) said this with respect to this case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States where they prosecuted Schenck for anti-war pamphlets. This is something that would be protected by the constitution today. This quote is a pretty lousy excuse for suppressing free expression considering Holmes's track record of dismissing free speech.

With regards to Facebook removing posts, why should there be a "due process" for a (specific) company to remove posts. What sense does this make?

[visarga]

FB isn't just a specific company. FB has grown to such a size that it has become a large part of the media/press. So it has to be regulated like press.

[wonder_er]

Er... press isn't supposed to be regulated.

Unless that was your point?

The first amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...

Where do you get that we should regulate the press?

Obviously you could argue that the constitution is wrong, and that's fine with me. It's just a document, but when you say "it has to be regulated..." what is the mechanism you're referring to?

[visarga]

For example, there are laws that restrict defamation, incitement to violence and guarantee the right of reply. They can't put false information out, like "The president of X has said Y", or use a cooked up image as real. They have to keep secret the names of minors when they are involved in police-related stories, they are required not to divulge privileged (state secrets) or private information, such as was the case with Gawker. All of these have their exceptions, but in general press is not quite free to do as they like, and it's better that way.

[mason240]

Freudian slip there.