You should totally twitter him that. If you do, would you please share any response with the forum?
This is a difficult topic because there is a monopoly on information in the media now. There isn't a way to express an equivalent rebuttal to false information. In a way the average person has diminished freedom of speech in the face of the mass media who owns and dominates information now. So, there are two issues: first is the freedom to say whatever is in your mind, and second is the power to say it in a context that can influence.
Society's that have unlimited freedom of action are anarchist. Society's that value freedom attempt to provide the greatest freedoms for each individual up to the point they do not encroach on the freedoms of another individual. If each individual is equal, then the right of one person to talk about killing someone is limited to whatever point it is not possible to cross the line and violate the life of another individual. Freedom is a state of equilibrium in which each person's domain of control is limited to their own life. This topic becomes morally complex when people by nature have power over other individuals (parents-children, employers-employees), and this is where it is difficult when one person's rights by their very nature impede onto another's rights. The parent has a right to their beliefs and culture and by the nature of the relationship with the child, the child is vulnerable to submit to those ideas overriding their own freedoms. The same is true of a personally owned business in which the employer, by the very nature of their relationship to the employee, has the capacity to override the rights of the employee's freedoms.
Yiannopoulos was banned from Twitter permanently, so no worries there.
We limit speech in many occupations. For example, people answering the phone at the Poison Control Center are required to give accurate information to callers in emergency situations. Your average receptionist at an office is required to say something like, "Thank you for calling Company XYZ. This is Stephen. How may I help you?" whether he wants to or not. I suppose the freedom part comes from not having to accept a job with speech requirements we are unwilling to accept. If we do accept such a job and insist on speaking freely in a constitutional sense, we may get reprimanded or even fired. This illustrates the flip side of free speech: we may have a right to it, but others have a right to react with displeasure to what we say. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" comes to mind.
I don't know the legal interpretations here, but in my layman's opinion, encouraging someone to commit a crime - e.g. murder - makes one an accessory to that crime.
Yes. Having the right to do something doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.
No, it is a fine and useful matter of principle. Some people may view it as a matter of tact. I view it in the context of what one hopes to accomplish, and the likely consquences - intended and unintended - of one's action. A "wrong" action will be counterproductive or bring undesired consequences. It doesn't require that the statement itself be wrong. Sure - I may have the right to spout my opinions at anyone I meet, but what is to be gained? In a discussion forum such as this, I might learn something or provide others with food for thought, but then we are willing participants in the threads where we post. IRL or in other online spaces, we might alienate a potential ally, break a confidence and lose someone's trust, lay ourselves open to identity theft, or many other things, all by exercising our right essentially to be stupid. We all have the right to do many things that bring mostly harm to ourselves and others.
