Hilariously enough, 4chan, if it is still functions how I remember it, sounds like it would be the most protected given the lack of algorithmicly promoted content.
Still, trying to prove a negative though, isn't it?
Still, trying to prove a negative though, isn't it?
Yeah that's going to end badly.
The difference is that posts don't even make it past the gate if they get blocked.
And certain content is also ban-worthy.
Again, they very much do censor stuff. You just don't see the censoring.
This all started with ads. Now all content is an ad, so that you can be served more ads. It's ingenious but also evil.
That shits on /pol/ right now, and is the root of supporting extremism to the point of violence and murder. And last I checked, making death threats is explicitly not protected speech.
However, "go kill ni*ers for a high score" is not only not a true threat, it's the kind of speech that Brandenburg v Ohio, which established the current incitement-to-imminent-lawless-action test, explicitly said was 100% protected free speech.
Pretty much anything less than leading a mob and telling them who is their next lynching target will be ruled protected speech.
Your test sentence fails the Brandenburg test: it is not "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action", nor "likely to incite or produce such action."