Counter-argument: it really, really doesn't. Incitement to violence will get you thrown out of any private premises in a flat trajectory, and bad cess to you because you earned it.

This is no different. Free speech is qualified and doesn't include incitement that leads to death. https://twitter.com/profsarahj/status/1347770857611923456

Indeed, if you were on my property, actively inciting others to come in and cause violence, intimidate and attack others and take actions that lead to the death of others, and I left you there, others could reasonably seek injunctions to make you stop that, to protect themselves.

So, if, then, I drop-kick your arse clean off my property because you're inciting violence towards others, then, a stór, your qualified rights to free speech in a public sphere won't counterbalance the rights of others to freedom from attack or my rights over my space.

This isn't refusal of entry on the grounds of prejudice, which might be something; this is being chucked out because you've used the right of access you were granted to attack, intimidate and threaten others.

You earned it. Buy the ticket, take the ride.

Bluntly, in the hierarchy of rights, free speech is quite a way down the list, and is extremely qualified for very good reason, so can we stop totemising it to give some class of justification for some of the very worst people around finally overstaying their excessive welcome?

Anyway. Morning, all.