But on a more serious note, the opinions of Supreme Courts have very strong moral force, express well-fashioned legal reasoning, and are frequently cross-cited between nations.
> except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
The Israeli government claims they were "likely to incite" such action. Should they have to prove it in a court, for each separate comment posted, before they can ask Facebook to remove that comment? Clearly that would never scale; it's suitable for books, not for Internet forum comments. What do you think would be reasonable here?
Yes, absolutely, without any doubt or qualification of any kind. "Scalability" is not even an applicable concept.
If Facebook wishes to collaborate with a government, as in this case, that fact establishes a sufficient nexus with the state that invokes the same standard of scrutiny.
In other words, if Facebook acts as the agent of the government, it is subject to the same restrictions as the government. In which case, each and every removal constitutes a specific deprivation of an individual's free speech, and thus must be treated as the extremely grave action that it is.
Your position is suitable for cattle, not humans.
Edit in reply:
True civility is defending the values of the civil.
You are advocating a dangerous and amoral position, and I will not shy away from opposing that position directly.
One may hide behind soothing phrasing and call it "civility," but when advocating censorship, they should always be met with a swift and unwavering response.
