You adding nuance to the the original scenarios I laid does not change that.
And I stand by the distinction I made.
Except that nuances always exist, and laws must address them. Do you agree that free speech isn’t unlimited? If communicating a threat is considered limited speech, how does one determine what is and is not a threat? That’s where you get into nuances.
According to the article, this wasn’t just one comment posted in a moment of anger. It was a series of posts. At some point, I think a reasonable person would feel threatened—honestly scared for their life. Would you be OK if posts like that were about you and your family? I wouldn’t, and frankly, I don’t know why conservatives would waste any time defending scumbag posters like that.