Free speech is so invaluable that it is insane to squander for such an inconsequential event. It has the ability to save millions. It could cost us a lot before this would even be a real discussion.
Looking down that staggeringly long list, I can say with some confidence that this was one of the more inconsequential attempts historically.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_and_coup_attempt...
From here in Europe it looked like an improvised coup attempt. Not a coup as in taking over the country, but a coup as in decapitating part of the government.
"Definition of coup d'état
: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics
especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coup%20d'%C3%A9ta...
I'm not sure pedantry contributes much in the circumstances.
Manufacturing Consent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuwmWnphqII
This is the question for this generation. The laws and constitution can be changed to reflect the will of the majority.
So stop arguing about what the law says now and look at the bigger picture. What should the law say.
No, free speech refers to free speech. Government censorship is one thing that can prevent speech being free, but not the only one.
Or put another way, there is a legal concept of "freedom of speech", rooted in the First Amendment in the US, and there is a somewhat separate moral concept, which can be both narrower and broader than the legal one. There is some pretty widespread disagreement on the exact boundaries of the moral concep.
The legal concept did not create the moral concept. The reason there is a First Amendment is that the value of free speech already existed, and was codified, in one limited domain, in the Constitution.
And I am quite sure that if the moral concept becomes too narrow, with overwhelming support for speech restrictions in the population in general, the legal concept will follow, via the amendment process... Which makes it a priority, for me, to push back on attempts to narrow the moral concept absent great need.
Or to put it another way: There is no legal requirement for a non-government entity to allow various speech in the US. But in many cases I would argue there is a moral requirement, even if they disagree with the content of the speech. Obviously, being a moral requirement, there is a line the entity needs to decide on for itself after which it will no longer support said speech.