I understand the difference between "kill NATO" and the correct translation of the Russian phrase "Убей НАТОвца". But that isn't the point. All speech is judged within its context. This is always the case in a legal situation, and of course, context is at the heart of how language works in any case. As I understand this situation, the contextualized meaning of "Убей НАТОвца" was not equivalent to "I urge you to go out and murder NATO personnel!" -- certainly not on the part of the people who repeated the phrase in support of the originally suspended user, and possibly not on the part of the original poster either. But *even if it had been*, I would *still* look at this as protected political speech. Advocating violence in a single sentence is not the same as organizing violent activity. I don't support the de-ironized statement "Убей НАТОвца", but I also don't support the suppression of the voices of those who do support that statement. I would, very likely, support government prosecution against individuals who were seriously trying to organize or incite violence. But that's the job of a government, not a blog hosting company.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I would, very likely, support government prosecution against individuals who were seriously trying to organize or incite violence. But that's the job of a government, not a blog hosting company.

It is an absolutely legitimate activity on the part of a US corporation to protect itself against even a remote possibility of legal action. This is basically half of the job description of any corporate counsel.

As far as what you say about the context, what was it exactly? Can you point me to place where it is evident?

(Reply to this) (Parent)