I have never said that speech should be fully free. I do have criteria that would be used to censor speech. However, neither the sixth riots or the summer riots had many actors whose speech I believe ought to have been banned.

For example, while I believe the democratic party spurred on or sat back in silence while BLM and Antifa rioted, most democratic politicians did not do anything that deserves censorship. Even Kamala Harris's financial support of those who looted and destroyed police stations in Minneapolis should not be censored -- the bail she asked for was a completely legal thing to provide.

As for the sixth, Trump's posts were entirely peaceful. He consistently asked for a peaceful demonstration. There are those claiming that using phrasing like 'fight' or 'take your country back', etc, incite violence. I do not believe that for one minute. Banning the opposition from saying they should 'fight' the incumbents or 'take the country back' from them seems incredibly dangerous. Even such colorful language as asking for politicians heads on a platter should not be banned (I recall several incidences of twitter accounts depicting Trump's beheading).

Politics in general leads to strong emotions. People have strong emotions over politicians. English has lots of colorful language for people we don't like. I believe the standards for 'violence' against politicians ought to be much lower than for calling for violence against people, especially non-governmental agents. For example, I do believe some of the BLM incitement of anger that instructed people to burn or loot local businesses (especially when that anger and mob then led to deaths), ought to have been soundly condemned, and I believe twitter should have flagged it and taken some measures to punish the account (although I still think outright censorship for one post would be overkill).

This is because these posts direct anger indiscriminately at people of a certain class, not one specific person who may actually have power. I find those kinds of posts highly problematic, and those would be the first I would censor, but again, I think we have seen only a handful of those over the past year. Certainly, I don't think any major politician has reached that bar.

So no, I do not believe in no censorship ever, I just have very open standards as to what speech to allow that would mainly have me allowing the vast majority of speech. I am not going to tighten my standards simply because left-wingers find them distasteful or want to accuse me of being a free speech zealot. I've stood on these same principles since when I was a democrat, and I'll stand on them now.

If it is an extremist thought it is better to know who is saying what than cutting off communication completely and hoping the problem goes away. But this has to go along with society coming together and addressing the problem firsthand. Is the extremist thought because of a mental illness? Is it some monetary issue driving such thoughts? Is it social issues that is driving such thoughts? Is it religion? The thoughts by themselves are immaterial unless the individual is a psychopath. Many turn extremist because of an underlying cause which I call the "root cause". Attack the root cause. That'll fix the person. For how long will society keep ignoring this aspect of human beings? Unless you dedicate funding towards tackling such issues you'll get to no where. By shutting off communications you haven't shut off these thoughts that crop up in an extremists mind. Al Qaeda existed before internet was even a thing. We have had genocides when technology did not exist. All throughout human history. It always has been bloody. On the contrary, I can argue that we are at a much better place than we were in the past many thousand years. So to only blame technology for spread of misinformation is disingenuous. Before technology existed misinformation spread rapidly through word of mouth but there was no way to cross check it. Today you have that ability to cross verify. You just need to give time to people to get used to this.

But once you introduce Censorship there is no turning back. Once authority tastes power they'll want to keep using it more and more. Just like Surveillance, Censorship will become a powerful tool in the hands of the powerful. It always starts with a valid justification.