>In your case it seems you are willing to curtail a broadcaster's speech because of your arbitrary rule that some of that person's followers may have threatened violence or sent death threats.

To be fair, that's not an "arbitrary rule" that kylesellas just made up. Censorship of speech which threatens or advocates violence is commonly accepted as a limitation to free speech necessary for maintaining civil society, and the premise is codified in law throughout the world.

>If your standard was applied consistently then then there would be no media.

The fact that the standard exists and that media also exists would imply that your definition of 'consistent application' isn't relevant.