yeah, it’s an objectively true statement it is just a commonly used trope used to argue a number of restrictions on speech, whether constitutional or not. Ken has written on this a lot
I have no idea what the judge is trying to do; I was just noting the many cliches that arise in discourse whenever someone says "free speech is not absolute". I am *hopeful* that the judge invokes only the existing, well-established, narrowly-defined limits on speech in these specific circumstances.
In fairness, the defendant's entire argument in the case seems to be that his 1A rights are absolute and cover conspiracy and true threats equally well.
I've learned that no matter how obvious you may think it is that you're deliberately repeating an invalid argument to an audience that knows it's invalid, to mock the inevitability of someone raising that argument seriously, it's not clear you're doing so to people who don't know you.
