[disown]

> I'm a free speech absolutist

No you are not. Why lie? A free speech absolutist means that you believe any speech is acceptable. You comments clearly show you believe in limits to speech.

> but violent speech, "fighting words," insurrectionist speech, etc. are not protected under any free speech doctrine

"Insurrectionist speech". You just gave yourself away. It's not "free speech doctrine" that prevents it. It's a supreme court ruling. The US was mostly free speech absolutist until the courts ruled direct threats to be illegal.

In case you think america limited free speech before the 20th century...

Politicians could threaten each other and duel each other...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr%E2%80%93Hamilton_duel

> I've argued in favor of free speech here on HN (and got the downvotes to prove it) more times than I can

As someone who has been downvoted defending free speech, I commiserate. But you don't strike me as a free speech guy. You have the strangest way of being "in favor of free speech".

> Free speech isn't some carte blanche that allows anyone to say anything at any time.

But you just claimed to be a free speech absolutist. That's exactly what a free speech absolutist believe. That you can say anything anytime.

> This has nothing to do with free speech, and Gab is an absolute cesspool of delusional QAnon conspiracies.

But you are a free speech absolutist. No?

Why do propagandists always do this? They pretend to be the other side and argue against the other side. It's like a meat eater pretending to be vegan and saying bad things about the vegan diet. And you have the gall to accuse gab of being disingenuous.

[dvt]

Just as logical point, you can't really be a de facto "absolutist," as any kind of reductio argument would obliterate your position. But I'd say I'm as absolutist as one can get.

[disown]

You claimed to be an absolutist though. And yes, you can be a free speech absolutist. Take a class in philosophy and educate yourself.

There are plenty of free speech absolutists who believe any speech, including direct threats, should be protected speech. That you should have the right to threaten anyone and everyone. Of course, acting out and carrying out the threats is illegal.

For example, if you said "I am going to kill you", free speech absolutist believe that should be allowed. Now if you actually killed someone, then you should go to jail. Meaning there differentiate the words "I am going to kill you" with "murder". In other words, murder is illegal, but saying you will commit murder is not. There is some nuance to it, but there are free speech absolutists out there.

But you are not a free speech absolutist. You lied about it. You aren't even pro-free speech. You comments clearly show that you align with the pro-censorship crowd because you use their terms and their logic.

Like I said, you are a meat eater pretending to be a vegan talking shit about veganism. But why?