Why not? If you want someone to (not) do something, you need to provide a compelling rationale. Otherwise you're trying to compel some based on your personal preference.

Personally I think wild hyperbole is funny and effective at making a point, so my preference is that the poster continue.

To me, calls for violence are exactly the dividing line between free speech and restricted speech. Show extreme judgement when invoking violent imagery.

> If you want someone to (not) do something, you need to provide a compelling rationale.

OK. Advocating violence is a crime. And text-based communication is notoriously difficult medium to express sarcasm and irony. Crimes are bad, mmmmkay?

Nitpick - advocating violence, specially as a personal vida is not a crime in most countries; promoting violence is, and it depends on the violence -death penalties and stonings are state-sponsored acts of violence, perfectly legal within their applicability in many parts of the world. Also, crimes arent necessarily "bad", nor requinte violence. abortion in some American states is a crime, and stealing cars is also a crime.

Advocating violence is not necessarily a crime. For example, in the US that violence must be imminent and likely (see Brandenburg v. Ohio).

> Advocating violence is a crime

The Dunning-Kruger effect is real.

You're probably thinking of assault. Assault requires an imminent threat of physical harm and the apparent ability to inflict the harm.

Mike Tyson threatening to punch someone in a bar is assault. Saying that you're going to set all patent trolls on fire is not, unless you have Human Torch like superpowers.