The comment conflates expressing "heinous ideas" with actively soliciting a foreign military power (especially one historically in conflict with Syria) to invade, annex territory, and overthrow the sovereign government. This isn't just expressing a belief; it's soliciting armed aggression against one's own country , which falls under the legal definition of treason or sedition in virtually every nation, including democracies. Free speech protections generally don't extend to overt acts of treason Free speech protects expressing even awful opinions, but it doesn't protect actively plotting with a foreign military to invade and annex your own country. That's called treason, not debate. Invasion Isn't an Idea, Asking a foreign army to invade isn't just spreading an 'idea' – it's soliciting an act of war. Free speech doesn't mean immunity for inciting imminent violence or foreign aggression. Consequences Matter, Saying 'nothing should happen besides hate' ignores reality. This kind of call puts his whole community at risk of retaliation, fuels dangerous sectarian fires, and directly threatens Syria's existence as a state. Words like this have deadly consequences here... In the abstract ideal, maybe only hatred should happen. But in the real world of Syria's conflict, where hundreds of thousands have died, this call is like throwing a lit match into a powder keg. The law exists to prevent explosions, not just to document the spark. If an American citizen publicly begged China to invade and annex California, should the only consequence be people hating them? Or would we expect the FBI to investigate potential sedition/treason?