[anonunivgrad]

Conspiracy theories that might drive someone to violence are protected speech in this country. Many “conspiracy” theories have proved true, e.g. the CIA’s insane antics in the 50s-80s.

We don’t have a Committee of Truth that determines what is true and therefore legally speakable.

If facts or alleged facts drive people to violence, that is the responsibility of those engaged directly in violence (or actually inciting it).

Incitement in America is basically: “let’s go burn down that building right now”. “As a moral matter, someone ought to burn down that building” is protected speech.

[marcinzm]

>protected speech in this country.

Protected from interference by the government. Private corporations are not yet the government.

[anonunivgrad]

Gab’s position is that they will censor no more than the law requires.

[Karunamon]

In which case they fail twice over - there is no legal requirement to remove speech that promotes violence, or porn, yet Gab actively removes both.

[dvt]

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. Under Classical Liberalism (which I am a proponent of), if your speech violates the Harm Principle, it's not protected. Conspiracies are indeed protected speech (e.g. "CIA killed Kennedy"). If your conspiracy incites to violence ("CIA killed Kennedy, let's storm Langley" -- and people actually do it), it's no longer protected speech.

[anonunivgrad]

I said exactly what I meant to say. Saying that the government ought to be overthrown is a long protected American right. The book stores are full of books arguing just that. People taking you up on it is not your problem.