[hbosch]

If the president is publicly instigating toward North Korea on your platform, arguably you have the responsibility to allow people to witness what's being said. In the same way, CNN arguably has the responsibility to broadcast it if he was recorded by their cameras.

It's probably not in the public interest to broadcast every person's incitations of violence or bigotry, but the president? Yes. Certainly you're not implying you should be treated exactly the same as the president of the United States...

[ricardoplouis]

The public's interest is a weak argument. I can say it's not in the public's interest to have someone who lost the popular vote in office at all, but that is only my opinion and doesn't speak to the original point.

I'm implying that the spirit of free speech should apply equally to all. If the president can come back after inciting violence, then everyone else should as well. It's not a selective principle that you get to choose how you follow.

If you don't want violent rhetoric to spread then yes, limiting free speech and universally applying those rules is a viable path to achieve that.

Otherwise, you create a regulatory environment that only applies to you if you don't have the power, political capital, or fanbase to yell loud enough in your favor.