Then you're going against a hundred years of legal thought on free speech there. There's a reason certain speech is not protected, and it's been hashed out. if you have a better legal argument than "it's just not," I'm interested, but it needs to address why previous thinking is incorrect. Edit: a [quick link][1] to all the types of speech in the US that is regulated and why.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...

Searched for 'violence' and derivative forms in that wiki link:

> limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for ... protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons.

The speech is not violent. However, we can say that speech that promotes such might not be allowed under "free speech."

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not violent though it can cause people to panic and cause harm.

What does this have to do with what I said? Why do you think I said anything about what is protected? We are arguing about the definition of the word violence.

Why is violence your line? What makes violence unacceptable but verbal harassment, abuses, bad faith arguments are deemed acceptable. Honest question that I'm still not settled on. What I still believe is that society should be the one managing this boundary area, and the state should stick to it's defined rules on free speech.

People should be able to boycot people, free enterprises should he able to manage their media channels, the state should not.

Who said violence is my line? Who said anything about what is and isn’t acceptable? Where are you getting this from? We are arguing over what the word violence means. I didn’t make any other claims.

I've been called names and threatened, and I've been attacked. I know which one I consider violent actually physically dangerous vs stressful :)