We are talking about legal speech which is being de-platformed because it's unpopular. And not just a particular kind of speech, but the entire platform on which speech in general takes place.
If it were prohibited speech or if the platform was illegal, this article would not exist and neither would this discussion.
A pretty distinct contrast to the prohibited speech in your examples.
Then I guess the president of the united states[1], the president of the philippines[2], the president of china[3], and all respective news corporations that broadcast their direct calls to violence should be de-platformed as well, if we're being impartial. Right?
And since we're being impartial, we should just ban entire television channels because they have broadcast these direct calls to violence. Just like 8chan is being de-platformed for a handful of posts that were submitted by users. Right?
Perhaps let's talk about the fact that the individual that precipitated this action also shared his views on twitter and facebook. And they were not removed until he became a figure of media attention. He also used facebook livestream. Time to de-platform those too, yes?
If it were prohibited speech or if the platform was illegal, this article would not exist and neither would this discussion.
A pretty distinct contrast to the prohibited speech in your examples.