Corporations blocking content is not a first amendment violation. They're not the government. You can argue corporations are blocking content and have an agenda but it's not a first amendment issue. Forcing corporations to host content would be though.

We can build a society where free speech isn't technically dead because you won't go to prison for saying stuff, but it sort of is dead because your speech is auto-censored by algorithms to make sure you adhere to approved speech. Is this a healthy society?

Far right brownshirt groups like the Proud Boys are regularly attacking people who they don't like or disagree with.

Do you have links?

Wikipedia has a good overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys

I also recommend searching for "proud boys arrested". You'll get plenty of news articles about many of their members being arrested for assault, violent threats, and attempted murder.

Plotting assassinations of governors.

Yes, there were 3 domestic terrorists (with 2 FBI agents effectively suggesting it...).

My concern is more at the government level - are there any threats from conservative republicans in office?

From the rights perspective, it appears they are concerned about a lot of amendment issues; which seem far larger than the isolated incidents of domestic terrorists.

I see some indications that the Michigan assassination plot was not planned by people holding typically right-wing views. For example https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/1....

Well, let's go with a Washington elected Republican, that the Republican party refused to cut ties, who published a manifesto that stated:

> the enemy must "surrender on terms" of no abortions, no same-sex marriage, no communism and "must obey Biblical law", then continued: "If they do not yield — kill all males".

Michigan?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretchen_Whitmer_kidnapping_pl...

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/0...

Literally armed people swarming government buildings to protest masks, bomb threats and plans, kidnapping.

https://www.reddit.com/r/InsaneParler/

gives more insights.

Washington?

You have Matt Shea, an elected Republican:

"In late October 2018, Shea acknowledged that he had distributed a document described as a "four-page manifesto" titled Biblical Basis for War that listed strategies that a "Holy Army" could employ. The document, consisting of 14 sections divided into bullet points, had a section on "rules of war" that stated "make an offer of peace before declaring war", which within stated that the enemy must "surrender on terms" of no abortions, no same-sex marriage, no communism and "must obey Biblical law", then continued: "If they do not yield — kill all males"."

"In April 2019, The Guardian published records from a right-wing chat group of four people that Shea participated in, where Shea used an alias of ‘True Warrior’ in Latin. Other members in the chat group discussed carrying out surveillance, intimidation and violent attacks on political enemies, including Antifa activists and "communists." Shea himself volunteered to conduct background checks on residents of Spokane, resulting in Shea naming three individuals. One of the chat group's members forwarded the information to The Guardian, while another confirmed the existence of the chats and acknowledged the discussion on conducting surveillance on "Antifa" people."

"An investigation commissioned by Washington House of Representatives reported, on December 1, 2019, that Shea had planned and participated in domestic terrorism on at least three occasions. This included his participation, organizing, planning, and promotion of the 2014 Bundy standoff in Nevada, the 2015 armed standoff in Priest River, Idaho, and the 2016 armed seizure of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County, Oregon. Shea led a delegation of right-wing legislators from Oregon, Washington and Idaho that met with law enforcement on January 9, 2016, in Burns, Oregon and were appraised of confidential intended law enforcement strategies for dealing with the refuge occupiers. Shea then disclosed those details to Bundy, according to the report."

The right wing has always had its fringe nutjobs and even terrorists; these seem (or seemed, until recently) to be trending down in severity and frequency, and everyone across the spectrum has typically condemned right-wing political violence. We're pretty good at marginalizing right-wing groups and mitigating their violence to the point where the odds of being impacted by right-wing violence were super low.

That feels less scary to me than watching hundreds of people descend on my neighborhood or a nearby neighborhood and set it alight or otherwise destroy it followed by the media and cultural elites (never mind colleagues, bosses, etc) tacitly approving of the violence (if not outright celebrating it--memorably a former ESPN reporter tweeted "Burn it all down!" and then when the violence approached his own neighborhood, "Get these animals TF out of my neighborhood"). This isn't to invalidate anyone's fear of right-wing violence; we all have different experiences and perspectives; I'm only sharing mine.

Note that we don't have to choose between left and right wing violence. We can and should condemn all kinds of political violence--indeed, it seems like every spike in the popularity of right-wing identity politics lags some much larger spike in left-wing identity politics, and every spike in right wing violence follows some spike in left wing violence and so on (e.g., you don't have proud boys without antifa). If I'm right, then it's kind of good news, because it means we can curb right wing violence and extremism simply by holding the left to the same standard.

None of those are the government, sure there are radical citizens (domestic terrorists), admittedly. Everyone universally thinks this is bad.

That being said, the right appears to be concerned about all their constitutional rights taken away. To me, that seems far more of a direct and far larger attack on millions of people than these random domestic terrorists.

> That being said, the right appears to be concerned about all their constitutional rights taken away. To me, that seems far more of a direct and far larger attack on millions of people than these random domestic terrorists.

You can be concerned about something without it being a legitimate threat. The right was concerned about Obama "coming for the guns", and before that, with Clinton "coming for your guns". Yet Obama got an "F" rating for his efforts in "controlling guns" from the gun control/reform lobby.

Theorizing that Operation Jade Helm was an effort to repeal the Second Amendment by force doesn't make it so, and elements of the right can be concerned by it all they like, it just doesn't make it something the left is responsible for.

You picked a terrible example, as he did restrict guns on a number of occasions during the terms. The fact that the gun control lobby gave him an "F" rating is because the fact that they want too much and are never happy with just a little.

These random domestic terrorists are a part of a disparate and loosely affiliated network of religious extremists ranging from white power prison gangs to the federalist society whom control the supreme court of the United states of America. Underestimating the threat of radicalized religions is a mistake.

>> ... You have Matt Shea, an elected Republican: ...

> None of those are the government, sure there are radical citizens (domestic terrorists), admittedly. Everyone universally thinks this is bad. ...

Is someone who is part of a state legislature not part of some level of government?

What on earth is a congressman if not "the government", if you're going to point to Bernie Sanders and AOC?

> [Matt Shea], A Republican, he represents the 4th Legislative District in the Washington House of Representatives.

> None of those are the government, sure there are radical citizens (domestic terrorists),

“Radical citizens (domestic terrorists)” and “the government” are overlapping groups. For instance, most people would agree that armed public law enforcement agencies are very much “the government”, but:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/27/white-suprem...

> noticed stuff being blocked by the left (1st amendment)

Like? (And before you answer, remember that the 1st amendment applies to businesses, too.)

> going after firearm ownership (2nd amendment)

When has either political party "gone after firearm ownership" in any way?

> and a constant attack on all conservatives & their ideals / objectives

That's because their ideals include: - Take away other people's basic rights - Enforce their version of Christianity on everyone - Encourage murder and vigilantism - Overthrow the government

Dems will say conservatives are trying to take away healthcare, abortion, kill immigrants, etc.

"will say"?

They ARE trying to remove abortion, in many states including no exemption for rape/incest/threat to mother's life.

You have militia groups patrolling the southern border.

Aren't democrats trying to swing to the other extreme and allow full term abortions? Even if it only happens rarely, the only difference between a viable fetus abortion and murdering a newborn in a NICU is a layer of skin surrounding one of them.

> What exactly are the conservatives doing?

Much of the rioting has been conducted/instigated by right-wing provocateurs (several specific ones have been identified), and much of the most severe lawless violence independent of origin of violence-in-general has been conducted by organized right-wing groups with the tacit, and sometimes active, collaboration of law enforcement (the police giving praise, thanks, and supplies to right-wing armed vigilantes, including Rittenhouse, just prior to the shooting he did — and doing so when they were out after curfew — while then turning around and publicly blaming Rittenhouse’s victims for being out after curfew is a fairly graphic illustration of this trend; as is the Trump Administration directive to DHS personnel on talking points supporting Rittenhouse after the incident.)

This seems like a particularly inflammatory characterization of events. I'll just say that I think Kenosha was a tragedy, ideally Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there. Ideally there wouldn't have been riots in the first place, and failing that, the government should have effectively marshaled the police and national guard to keep the peace so (largely untrained) private citizens didn't have to do the job. I can understand why police viewed those private citizens as "help" in keeping the peace, but obviously that's problematic (bringing us back around to the rioters creating the situation and the government failing to adequately manage it). And of course everything Trump says tends to do more harm than good.

As for Rittenhouse's "victims", by all appearances Rittenhouse was acting in self defense--maybe he was instigating the conflicts before the cameras started filming, but there's no evidence to support that; on the other hand, the footage does show Rittenhouse being chased and physically attacked before firing. I'm inclined toward the presumption of innocence, but I also understand that this is very controversial.