Yeah, that was a couple of years ago and a clear line in the sand. No illegal content. A good choice. Free speech doesn't include illegal content.

Well, it doesn't to most rational people.

> Free speech doesn't include illegal content

Isn't that kind of begging the question? "Illegal content" is just a bunch of types of expression that the government has decided to ban.

They are all exceptions to free speech which you accept, which brings your free-speech-absolutist stance into question.

You assumed I was a free speech absolutist. I am not. I am not an extremist. Rights must have reasonable restrictions. They are things like libel, slander, child pornography, classified material by a person who has clearance, etc...

Those are unlawful and are reasonable restrictions with very, very few restrictions. They may be published for use in the court, whistle blowing, or otherwise outlined affirmative defenses established by law or precedent.

I am not an extremist. I am not an absolutist. The right has reasonable restrictions. The question is where those restrictions are. I think I've explained where I believe those should be, though they are scattered in a bunch of comments.