[refurb]

I see so many posts on here that only see the world in black and white. It’s either or, never shades of gray.

No political party that supports free speech claimed it was so absolute that we ignore the national security implications of non-citizens promoting violence against US citizens.

[UncleMeat]

During the biden administration I had dozens of people tell me that they were criticizing the biden administration because of their free speech absolutism. Absolutism.

The richest man in the world called himself a free speech absolutist.

That vanished into the wind.

[refurb]

Free speech absolutism obviously comes with caveats like inciting violence. This particular situation is no different.

I see no change in stance.

[happytoexplain]

"Free speech absolutism" was always applied just as vigorously - more so even! - to people "inciting violence" to a greater degree than in this example (they defended much more explicit glorification of violence and hatred than in this example, and even outright inciting of violence, as you call it, which this is obviously not an example of).

The stance flipped polarity utterly.

[refurb]

"Inciting violence" has a specific definition as defined by the courts.

It's not "we should beat up this ethnic group", it's "hey everyone, let's meet downtown at 5pm and strat beating up this ethic group".

It has to be a specific and imminent incitement of violence.

[UncleMeat]

If we are going by the specific definition as defined by the courts then there is no way that a ton of these cases fit the bill.