I think it has gone beyond what kind of speech enjoys what kind of protection. I think it's time the owners of the platforms state, "if agents of the U. S. government wish to threaten U. S. citizens with violence from the military that is sworn to protect them, they can do it on their own web properties."<p>This isn't about providing a platform to those that don't have one. Does one actually think the president of the United States would have trouble getting the message out if they did not have access to Twitter? There is an article floating around HN today on "being complicit" and how history will judge those who are. If online platforms aren't careful, I suspect history will not judge them kindly, either.
I guess the question is: Is what Trump's doing "protected free speech", or is it "yelling-'fire'-in-a-crowded-theater-without-an-actual-fire free speech"?