Sure; they'd probably apply strict scrutiny [0]. In the USA, speech is typically protected by default; the burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that the speech was harmful.

Seriously, have you never heard an angry American yell that they are frustrated with the status quo and would like to "burn it down" [1]? It is a common refrain and generally taken as a hyperbolic statement about the speaker's dissatisfaction with the actions of the government.

Finally, if you're in the USA, you have the right to a trial by jury if you're accused of crimes [2]; you do not need to worry that some appointed judge will find your speech harmful, but rather that a panel of your peers will unanimously agree that your speech is harmful.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

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

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_...

You're discussing law as it currently stands, while the original poster proposed changing the law.

To what end are you arguing? Do you honestly think that the 6th Amendment will be repealed, or that strict scrutiny will suddenly not be applied when appropriate?

(I suspect that this entire comment thread was started in order to try to pull a rhetorical gotcha, and you didn't actually expect somebody to respond to your words as written, but hopefully you've learned some constitutional law on this beautiful sunny MLK Jr. Day.)

How is it a "rhetorical gotcha" to ask what it would look like to consistently apply a proposed principle or law?

Equal protection under the law is also a constitutional principle (I knew that one already, thanks), but it seems in short supply in much of modern thinking and advocacy.

The first question somebody should ask when advocating some kind of measure aimed at their adversaries is: what would it look like if this was applied to my friends also?

Groups like the ACLU used to think this way, which is why they defended the most undesirable groups advancing the most repulsive ideas.

That kind of thinking is going by the wayside as longstanding liberal principles like freedom of speech, due process, presumption of innocence, etc. are all going by the wayside, tarred by their association with the "right wing."

I agree entirely with your point. I think, however, that there's something of a false equivalence: It is not the case that the tweets which are inciting violence are coming from all political believers in equal share.

We don't get "longstanding liberal principles" by publishing our speech on a private corporate platform. Freedom of speech and due process are merits of the law and not of Twitter's terms of service. Twitter is free to ban all incitements to violence without banning all hyperbolic political speech.

They ACLU haven't left their liberal principles by the wayside. They warned about the power of social media companies as recently as January 8, after the events at the Capitol.

https://www.newsweek.com/aclu-counsel-warns-unchecked-power-...

"ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook After Trump Suspension"

"For months, President Trump has been using social media platforms to seed doubt about the results of the election and to undermine the will of voters. We understand the desire to permanently suspend him now, but it should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions – especially when political realities make those decisions easier," the statement read.

"President Trump can turn his press team or Fox News to communicate with the public, but others – like many Black, Brown, and LGTBQ activists who have been censored by social media companies – will not have that luxury. It is our hope that these companies will apply their rules transparently to everyone."

The statement you quoted is a good statement, I agree. And maybe the ACLU is re-finding its way. But the ACLU has changed, and it's not just me saying this, it's the former head of the ACLU:

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/02/14/the-aclu-would-not-...

> ‘I believe that the national ACLU, if the Skokie case arose today, would not take it. They might take the same case for the Martin Luther King Jr Association, but they wouldn’t take it for the Nazis.’

> As Kaminer has long argued, the rot has been setting in for some time. But since Trump’s election, the ACLU has been more noticeably shying away from contentious free-speech cases.