I believe there are no examples of platforms with any significant reach that can possibly take a purely compliance approach. Speech permissible by law in many jurisdictions is well beyond what is tolerable in public forums - or tolerable in your office meeting room.
There is no such thing as "tolerable" - there is only what one can tolerate. To phrase it that way asks the question who claims they're incapable of tolerating what.
"Intolerable speech" makes it sound like it's the speech's fault.
>"Fire in a crowded theater" is intolerable speech, and so is publicly calling for executions. It's enshrined in jurisprudence.
Directly threathening to execute someone maybe. But "Fire in a crowded theater" has not been part of jurisprudence for... 40 years. The US has very, very limited free speech restrictions.
If someone walked into their place of work and spent the whole day shouting obscenities and racial slurs I think their speech would be deemed intolerable.
Tolerable in public forums according to whom? You? Why should your level speech tolerance get enshrined in FB content policy? The process of lawmaking is how we come to an agreement on the bounds of acceptability. Don't like those bounds? Change the law. Don't use social network insiders to do it for you.
