If the loved one of a politician was severely injured because of a drunk driver should alcohol be banned? What if the person injured isn't related to a politician?
Or cars. Or roads. Or hammers. Or any other ingredient in the process.
Useful tools like speech and hammers are equally useful for anyone and for any purpose. Fire, electricity, sharp saw blades, the wheel, money, intelligence, good looks, encryption, math, can all be used for good or bad, and there is no way to change that and seperate the utility into only utility for good.
It's misguided to try to address the misuse of a tool by controlling the tool instead of the weilder.
It just becomes a little easier to pick on something like alcohol or guns because you can say they "obviously duh" aren't useful tools or necessities like vehicles or electricity, so it's ok to act like they are somehow less inanimate or neutral or useful than other random equally special purpose things, and easier to evoke emotional reactions about them whether from puritanism or fear, than say, paint thinner or construction tools. And most people will buy that more than any academic arguments, and numbers matter more than academic reason.
So we control speech. And on private platforms, which is all platforms, they can. And only the worst a*holes and the dopiest hippies complain about it.
I certainly don't trust governments, whether they lean left or right, as they all have heavy biases and big money influencing decision making.
It would certainly reduce the chance people would say unsubstantiated and harmful things if it was enforced.
Btw we aren't discussing what an unreasonable person might do with that information, just whether or not a reasonable person might believe what has been said or understand it a certain way.
We can definitely solve for the egregious cases though and we can solve those before getting too hung up on the tough ones in the middle.
And just to be clear. You are always permitted to say true things. It's only when you say false things that we need these curbs. What I'm really talking about is curbing "false speech".
Bad example. We do limit the consumption of Alcohol and also Driving because of the possibility of Drunk Drivers.
I think the significance of the fact that it was a politician's relative is that it suggests that this is part of a larger pattern. I think it would be similar if you had a politician calling for violence against an ethnic group that resulted in actual violence; that seems like a good reason for restrictions to me.