Most Americans and Europeans will support "Terrorist" censorship. The U.S. giants are under pressure from Germany's Chancellor Merkel and soon probably President Trump to effectively censor the net. They've come together to create a database of hashtags that can reliably detect repostings in today's systems. They can be worked around with a little work, but many posters are too lazy to do so or don't have the expertise. Details in the Facebook post below.
Hillary Clinton is an example of the many "liberals" who have joined "conservatives" calling for limits on speech for those labeled "terrorists." Unfortunately, no one can agree on who is a "terrorist." The Turkish government labels some Kurdish groups "terrorists" while the United States sends arms to their close allies in Syria and Iraq. The term has become almost meaningless. The U.S. free speech standard - that almost everything is protected except an immediate call to violence - seems better to me. ("Clear and present danger.")
I doubt more than 10% of people in Europe and the United States are near-absolutist in a free speech debate. One reason I do is I have a clear perception of the slippery slope.
For example, I'd be comfortable writing this, except that my knowledge of the history is not enough to make me certain.
"Reading Peter Mansfield's book A History of the Middle East left me horrified at the role Britain, France, and the United States have played. Every Arab schoolboy learns of the deaths of his predecessors fighting World War 1 in 1917 & 1918 after being promised Independence by the British. They were betrayed by the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement to divide the area into British and French spheres. The Europeans led brutal campaigns after the war to defeat the independence movement.
Every educated woman in the Middle East knows about the CIA coup that threw out the elected Iranian government of Mohammad Mossadegh on behalf of the oil companies. CIA lead Kermit Roosevelt even bragged about the U.S. role in his book, Countercoup. The pictures from Abu Gharib show the dark side of today's U.S. and U.K. role.
The U.S. backed often brutal monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain need to be replaced. So do the brutal thugs backed by the U.S. in Iraq. ISIS probably never would have grown except for the brutal repression of the Iraqis, confident that their international sponsors would accept it.
The world would be better if the Arab people led a change." (The above is accurate as far as I know.)
If I wrote, "if the Arab people led a change, by any means necessary?" or "How can the torturers of Abu Ghraib and the water boarders judge they are wrong?" At least one U.S. Congressman would call that supporting terrorism and has called for blocking statements like that from the Internet. I wouldn't be surprised if Donald Trump's people and many of Hilary Clinton's agreed.
What if I added, as in true, "In 1968 through 1971, I faced a decision whether to join the underground actively warring against the U.S. government. I choose to reject violence, but also know that one of my most gentle, loving, intelligent, and thoughtful friends chose otherwise. I knew and worked with David Gilbert as Lou Wasser, his name when underground. I discovered his true identity when his picture appeared on the front of the times after two people died in a Weather Underground robbery of a Brink's truck. I think David's choice was wrong but know he acted according to his conscience."
"We have to understand," My grandfather, an Orthodox Rabbi, answered when I asked why he had a copy of Hitler's Mein Kampf on his shelf.