He never said that. He said that a publishing delay just enough to filter out potential illegal content (snuff, hate speech are illegal under US law) would benefit the society overall.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_St...
That specific type of imminent danger speech and it's expression are not protected by first amendment rights. It's right there in your Brandenbug v. Ohio.
> Portions of the rally were filmed, showing several men in robes and hoods, some carrying firearms, first burning a cross and then making speeches. One of the speeches made reference to the possibility of "revengeance" [sic] against "Niggers," "Jews," and those who supported them.
This was determined to be protected speech under the First Amendment.
False - explained by a 1st Amendment lawyer: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-white-first-amen...
If you have 2 opposing views, and one is delayed long enough, you've effectively censored it, in favor of the other.
Which is exactly what's going to happen. Once the dissenting view "passes filter", the news cycle is over, the unfiltered view remains in everyone's retinas, the filtered one ignored, despite any merits it may have.
This is just preparing the field for stronger, more arbitrary censorship.
Wouldn't the most appropriate legal response to this be not allow social media companies to have any sort of recommendation algorithm and force them to have feeds that are linear in time of people who you follow?
The problem with the mixed approach is that these platforms get the official recognition they don't deserve, and the private censors we don't need or want.