The article didn’t directly tackle what I consider two of the muddiest areas for free speech:
1. Someone is spreading adult / controversial / extremist material to children. Should that be protected by free speech and how do we decide?
2. Someone with a large platform and millions of followers is making speeches that will inspire an extreme subset of their followers to commit violence and other crimes, but the person is not committing any crimes themselves. Should they be protected by free speech? Where do the limits lie?
#2: There are laws against incitement to violence already.
But also there are people who bend this to claim anything they don't care for "could result in violence".
To me the line seems fairly clear (if we are fair). That something "could result in violence" doesn't mean the speech is direct incitement to violence, and it should be protected, at least in the U.S.
1. Someone is spreading adult / controversial / extremist material to children. Should that be protected by free speech and how do we decide?
2. Someone with a large platform and millions of followers is making speeches that will inspire an extreme subset of their followers to commit violence and other crimes, but the person is not committing any crimes themselves. Should they be protected by free speech? Where do the limits lie?