I noticed it about 2 years ago. People like Dave Rubin, the alt-right and the big movement against SJWs all want to hide under free speech. Of course you shouldn’t be locked away for saying something insensitive but it doesn’t make it ok. Trump started this unapologetic, non pc bullshit rhetoric. They take it too far and except people not to get emotional when being called out their name.

responsibility for the consequences of your speech.

You have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. If that causes death and injury, prosecuting you for the results in no way has inhibited your "free speech".

when we think of the First to the federal government. And states have their own versions.

Private industry is a different matter. They can set their own rules, but when an institution is as large as Facebook, say, the issue isn't simple. As wife of a Jew, I'd let people say what they want as long as they are not part of large effort to influence whole peoples.

For the latter, we really need "no yelling fire in a crowded nation" laws to limit the evil, deceptive manipulation of mass media for political purposes.

it is one thing to insult someone, another to threaten to KILL them.

There are limits to free speech. That's why Anglin fleed to Africa. His attorneys are hoping for a Neo Nazi Judge.

The government isn't suing him. He's protected from the GOVERNMENT putting limits on speech.
He's being sued by a private citizen who is the aggrieved party!

Between free speech and harassment. One is protected. One isn't. I can call you bad names. I can insult you, your family, your ethnic group, whatever. What I can't do, is exhort hundreds of others to initiate a campaign of harassment that includes death threats. Death threats, threats of violence, stalking--not protected. 700 messages that include death threats and harassment of a person's family and associates is not free speech.

This is not a fine distinction. It's pretty binary.

on the Brandenburg test which has 3 distinct elements:

1) intent
2) imminence
3) likelihood

Ruling is here

In Matal v. Tam, the Supreme Court (in a unanimous decision) reaffirmed that there is no hate speech exception to the 1st Amendment.

As to the claim that this is a civil lawsuit between two private parties:

Since the 1960's the Supreme Court has allowed and expanded that 1st Amendment can be raised as a defense in civil lawsuits.

I noticed a large swastika scratched in the sidewalk. Quiet midwest farming community. Hate is everywhere and growing under fascism.

So sure, they have the first amendment, but they can also be prosecuted under terrorism laws. These hate groups are inciting violence. Our current president has incited violence at his rallies.

Hate speech is ALWAYS a political agenda for those who desperately want to deny white terrorism.

And for a very interesting precedent. A liberal Democratic president has already killed a US citizen for terror speech. Not for terrorist acts, just for speech that encouraged others to commit terrorist acts of violence.

Assault is a crime. Libel is a crime (even though slander can be iffy)

Doesn't matter if a threat or followed through on or not.
Even if it's just to intimidate, if I publically announce you cheated me and that you cheat everyone you sell to, that can be taken as evidence should you want to take me to court for false public statements that were made in an attempt to harm your business.

If I announce I'm going to beat you within an inch of your life because I don't like the way you looked at me, you can apply for a restraining order against me and take me to court.

If I incite my friends to harass you extra-judicially, I'm still responsible for my words, and responsible for any incitement to violence against you that was made by my friends and followers.

Of course I can defend myself and say I really mean it because I'm just a goofball hothead, but still...my assault against you is admissible in a court of law.

So, yes. Words matter.

Haele