It is important to have this conversation, and the author does well to bring up history and context to the treatment of domestic terrorism by the FBI and others. While I believe the representation of this context is very helpful, the author allows his own emotion and implicit bias to diminish the value of the article later when he speaks about Trump's connection to white nationalism. The author's opinion is made clear at this point.

This article does well to report the facts and provide the historical context around free speech laws as they relate to conspiracy theories. I did however expect to see the author show some amount of caution for the ways this could negatively affect the 1st Amendment. For example, at one point believing that the Gulf of Tonkin was a false flag would have been considered conspiracy theory, but today we know it to be true. So the problem with this legal direction, as the author should have pointed out, is that sometimes conspiracy theories are true. And therefor, we must be able to speak freely about them.