What's Law Got to do With it
, 
Tina Turner once presented the question: What's love got to do with it? To which Legalhotwater, now, asks the question: What's law got to do with it? Apparently nothing. Nothing at all. Especially if it's Google and even more so if it's Woke driven, enabled, backed, and supported by the New York Police Department, and the Northern District of California which is the home of Big Tech.
The Northern District of California loves Big Tech and consequently allows Big Tech to get away with murder, certainly in a figurative manner, and one is left to wonder if not literally, too. This is why 99% of Big Tech's one sided agreements shackling most users, unsuspectingly, are constructed so that no matter what Big Tech does to violate your rights, Big Tech will allege immunity, if you sue them in court. And where will that be, as a matter of law? The Northern District of California federal court. And what happens 99% of the time? Dismissal, at the pleading stage, irrespective of what's cited in the Complaint. Judges know better than what's pleaded in the Complaint to Big Tech's advantage and your disadvantage.
With that in mind, turning to the United States Supreme Court, their expertise was drawn upon to gleen the thoughts of the high court, since it wrote the controlling Opinion. What Opinion?
"the freedom of speech which is secured by the Constitution does not confer an absolute right to speak, without responsibility, whatever one may choose, or an unrestricted and unbridled license giving immunity for every possible use of language and preventing the punishment of those who abuse this freedom; and that a State in the exercise of its police power may punish those who abuse this freedom by utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to incite to crime, disturb the public peace, or endanger the foundations of organized government and threaten its overthrow by unlawful means, is not open to question. (emphasis added mine). Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666-668.”
Cited from Supreme Court Opinion: Whitney v. California, 274 US 357 (1927). What were the two principle states involved in that decision? New York and California. What are the two states involved today? New York and California.
So there you have it, the question raised to the Supreme Court, which, again, via it's Opinion, above, authored free speech limits that incite violence; but that was pre-Woke, this is the Woke era, where norms are upside down. Inciting riots and vigilante behavior in the name of Woke or far left ideology is ok, yet simple disagreement with Woke or far keft ideology will likely get you banned or restricted on Google, Facebook, Instagram, Discord, 'X' formerly Twitter, and anywhere else Big Tech unilaterally decides legitimate free speech is unacceptable because it does not comport with their narratives and the green light bestowed upon Big Tech by the Northern District of California.