Yea, specifically advocating for the Capitol building riots on Jan 6th

Guess a lot of racist stuff, based on things I saw on Twitter

Is it OK to silence people now?

Actually yes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action. Not saying what happened on /r/donaldtrump actually met that criteria (that's up to a court to decide), but the precedent to silence people (by the government no less) is definitely there.

So you are against the freedom of speech principle?

What gave you that impression? Moreover, what do you mean by "the freedom of speech principle"? It can mean anything ranging from "you can literally say anything you want and the government should protect you while doing so (eg. punishing companies that refuse to transmit your speech)", to "most speech, excluding a laundry list of exceptions like hate speech, copyright infringement, defamation, heresy, certain ideologies, etc."

What is hate speech?

Everyone, please stop engaging this person who is arguing in bad faith, and only seeks to waste your time.

Is everything supposed to be black and white?

Following the arguments put forth in the rest of this thread, it is possible to support free speech while still arguing for exceptions and being against free speech absolutism.

Such an argument against an entire whole does not logically follow from the given argument that specific exception should be made.

If you think it can't have exceptions, do you think libel and slander laws are a travesty?

I think you will find very few people defending free speech in the face of "actually planning crime".

Of course. But the problem lies in what constitutes crime. Few years ago, interracial marriage was crime. Should ISP's be shutting down forums where couples can find the social safety that they long for?

Would you support the silencing if leaders of the Augusta Civil Rights Riot were using forums, or Reddit, or FB, to organize themselves?

There is a reason why freedom of speech, without any limitations, is so valued in the free world. Those in power will always use "crime" and "think of the children" as tools to sway the public into weaponizing the government.

Ah yes, the "free world" that is the USA. Sorry, as a German with "plenty" of limitations on free speech (from denying the holocaust, to "insulting") I can't empathize too much.

Imagine a situation where people are credibly planning an armed assault on, say, Citibank, in public forums.

Do you believe it is OK to disrupt their planning? Do you believe it becomes not-OK if the target of the domestic terror is the seat of our government?

Let me use another scenario. 1969, Brazil. Members of a revolutionary group kidnapped the US Ambassador. After that, and a few other incidents, the government used the same argument you presented to review and approve contents of newspapers, magazines, radio shows, movies and correspondence.

Do you believe it is OK to do this, in order to disrupt their planning? Do you believe it becomes not-OK if the target of domestic terror is a tyrannical government?

[1]: https://www.insidehook.com/article/history/kidnapped-why-an-...

Arrest the conspirators and thank them for their candor.