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.
I already told you my opinion on what represents a threat and what does not.
And none of the vitriolic statements listed in the article struck me as rising to the level of an actual threat.
I also did not see anything in the article that indicated a single person had made a “series” of threatening posts. If I simply missed it, perhaps you would be kind enough to post the part of the article in which such a claim is located?
I “defend scumbag posters like that” because I believe in REAL freedom of speech - but please do not make the mistake of assuming that my defending them means I agree with what they are saying.