What is legal speech or not should be decided by courts, not some activists working for Big Tech or outsourced moderators working for $1 an hour.

> What is legal speech or not should be decided by courts

How would that work in practice? Say I run a forum and I want to take down a post that's calling for a mosque to be blown up. Should I need to hire a detective to discover the identity behind the account, file a lawsuit, serve that person some papers, and wait for the case to make its way through the courts? Do I need to leave the post up while that's taking place?

This is what the companies do who want to take down copyrighted content, and what governments do when they want to take down illegal content. Why should any other standard apply?

Typically in such cases posts are placed in limbo - still present but usually inaccessible while legal questions are answered.

Courts should be making these decisions, not companies interfering in other companies.

Why?

Because at the end of the day these are questions "the people" need to answer, not unelected managers at tech companies.

A few people do not have the right to silence the voice of millions. That's what's happening, fundamentally, and it is being cheered, and you all somehow think this is going to end well.

It has been, and its enforcement is then passed on to some activists working for Big Tech or outsourced moderators working for $1 an hour. If people don't like how a specific person enforces this or interpreted a judge's rule, they must pony up the money to challenge in court.