> I guess you could say that free speech has limits that are acceptable.
widely known and not really legally disputed.
> You know you can't yell fire in a crowded room and not get litigation and charges brought against you.
this seems like empty rhetoric; we already know that there are classes of speech that aren't 1A protected. this isn't controversial.
> If 8Chan was a breeding ground for Islamic Extremists would people be okay with still existing?
whether or not people "are okay" with something isn't relevant when discussing the legality of said thing, which seems to be what the rest of your post is focused on. so this seems like a red herring, or alternatively, the rest of your post was a red herring.
if your line of reasoning about the closure is legally oriented, then i'm sure you can find lots of things people aren't okay with, e.g. campaign finance.
widely known and not really legally disputed.
> You know you can't yell fire in a crowded room and not get litigation and charges brought against you.
this seems like empty rhetoric; we already know that there are classes of speech that aren't 1A protected. this isn't controversial.
> If 8Chan was a breeding ground for Islamic Extremists would people be okay with still existing?
whether or not people "are okay" with something isn't relevant when discussing the legality of said thing, which seems to be what the rest of your post is focused on. so this seems like a red herring, or alternatively, the rest of your post was a red herring.
if your line of reasoning about the closure is legally oriented, then i'm sure you can find lots of things people aren't okay with, e.g. campaign finance.