Actually threatening someone with violence seems like a bad thing to me.
Yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater seems like a bad thing to me.
Although I might prefer that the First Amendment only limit the federal government (meaning: if Alabama wants to establish the Baptist Church as the official, mandated church of Alabama, that would be OK with me, but that ships has sailed and you can’t do that.) So the First Amendment has expanded to governments beyond the Feds.
I figure at this point, Free Speech should be expanded to any and all companies that allow people to speak. Meaning — I have no access to the NYT printing press, therefore the NYT can block me from voicing my opinion (they don’t have to publish my letter to the editor).
But Twitter is different. The whole idea of Twitter is that if you have an account, you can post. To me, that means a company like Twitter should not be allowed to block people. You have hateful opinions? OK. Go and post your hateful opinions about this group or that people. Twitter should be required to publish your hateful views. That’s Freedom. If Twitter doesn’t want to do that they should be in a different business.
Do you believe the things mentioned in the First Amendment were created thereby or that the First Amendment (like the Second) notes the pre-existing which would fall under "...to secure these rights Governments are instituted among men..."?