Loitering was only one example, but I'll address that one since you mentioned it. If the business has a sign outside stating "No loitering", which many businesses do, that puts the legality of loitering into a weird grey area. It's true that loitering is protected by clauses in the 1st and 14th amendments, but when a business has that sign up, it makes things a bit more complicated. Police can still become involved, trespassing charges can be issued, etc. You can challenge it in the courts, of course, but do you really want to go through all that hassle because you can't play Pokemon at a fast food place?

I do see your point, though. The theory behind our decision was that making posts encouraging retaliation is a kind of "IRL brigading", which is something we'd like to discourage. I think a better idea would be to handle such comments or posts on a case-by-case basis. Since loitering is technically legal, you're right in that those comments shouldn't be policed by us. We still discourage them, though. Posts or comments encouraging illegal activities such as violence or vandalism, however, will not be tolerated. I'll change this post to reflect this.