No, it's not. Freedom of speech never came with a freedom from consequences, nor a guarantee to a broadcast platform. You're still free to stand on the corner with a "God hates fags" sign or a "kill democrats" sign.
I am genuinely curious if do you see someone with a sign saying "Kill X" and someone just talking on the internet about undemocratic power change differently? If you see them differently, then why? The acts they are talking about are both crimes. My assumption is that: 1. Not everyone on Parler committed crimes in the physical world - eg. storm the Capitol, so that means that talking about something is not enough to make you break the law, 2. people that did commit crimes will be prosecuted and convicted on already existing laws.
You're right about the second statement, but the first statement is inaccurate. They were not DIRECTLY involved, but the Taliban gave OBL safe haven for years, he trained his people there, and controlled his operations from there. They weren't mere bystanders.
Except that Bin Laden lived in Afghanistan for many years prior to the attack, and the Taliban provided material supprt to al-Qaeda, including hosting training camps, which they refused to shut post-9/11.
> the US still invaded Afghanistan to kill as many Taliban members as possible.
No, it didn’t.
It invaded Afghanistan because al-Qaida was based there and the Taliban was actively protecting them.
> Americans arent very forgiving to terrorists and terrorist sympathizers,
Very clearly true of Islamic terrorists who have targeted the US or Israel. Very much less true of other terrorists, especially racially White ones, and most especially racially White ones that aren’t Communist.
I actually looked at the content on Parler and TheDonald. It wasn't just "kill X" or other bland content. There were detailed plans, detailed descriptions of exactly what hundreds of people were planning, lots of conversations where people were coordinating with each other, etc. Look at the photos of people who broke into the Capitol. Flex cuffs aren't normal peaceful protest equipment. Neither is body armor, armored helmets, concealed weapons, large canisters of pepper spray and tear gas (which they used against police).
Did everyone on Parler do what they said? No. Did some? Yes, we have captures of their posts and video of them doing it. When people with bad intentions never encounter any push back, they're emboldened and escalate their speech and actions. Parler has been warned for years that allowing this type of content to run rampant will encourage more, and encourage even more extreme statements, which eventually lead to actions. Eventually it happened. And then other independent, private organizations had every right to decide not to do business with them, and proceeded to terminate their relationships with Parler as is their right.
If all the people who peacefully used Parler are upset, they should blame Parler's poor management, as Parler's board clearly did.
It seems to me that there has a just been a giant experiment that has disproven that point of view. When it comes to extremism, at least in the early 21st century, sunlight seems to be a fertilizer not a disinfectant.
It's called the paradox of tolerance. If we tolerate ALL views without limit, eventually the intolerant will take advantage of this, and overrun the tolerant. Tolerance is like free speech, there are healthy limits that must be in place to safeguard participants. What happened at Parler was not simply political speech, it was clear and detailed planning of violence.
