[dTal]

>Higgins’ incitement to violence passed muster because it targeted a specific sub-group of Muslims — those that are “radicalized” — while Delgado’s post was deleted for attacking whites in general.

That seems disingenuous. Higgins' rant starts by pitching "Christendom" with-a-capital-C against "these heathen animals", before he ever mentions radicalization. And when he does mention it, he says "radicalized Islamic suspect", which is fairly meaningless as a category as no burden of proof is required. Coupled with repeated incitements to "kill them all", I think that's pretty clearly directed at all Muslims.

The trouble with this policy is, I can apparently be as racist and hateful as I like as long as I take care to slip a "non-protected category" in there - even if by doing so I am implying that all members of the protected category are such. For example, "lynch every last one of those baby-raping niggers" is fine, because it only applies to those niggers that rape babies. In fact it is exactly this sort of speech that is the most harmful - "All niggers rape babies and we should lynch them" is far less potent.