No, those aren't hostile and dangerous words. You're just getting overexcited.
The scenario I explained is one in which a government may legitimately censor somebody because it exceeds the normal restraints of First Amendment. It's pretty clear that Rogan didn't say that. You may note in everything I'm saying, I'm not supporting censoring Rogan. If the US government wants to oppose his message, clearly they should just spend time on talk shows saying the message they want the public to hear (like they do). I do think Rogan was irresponsible with ivermectin, but it does not reach the point where the government could legitimately censor him.
You don't need you to keep reminding of quotes about hitler. It doesn't somehow make your argument stronger to explain how the Nazis came to be.
The scenario I explained is one in which a government may legitimately censor somebody because it exceeds the normal restraints of First Amendment. It's pretty clear that Rogan didn't say that. You may note in everything I'm saying, I'm not supporting censoring Rogan. If the US government wants to oppose his message, clearly they should just spend time on talk shows saying the message they want the public to hear (like they do). I do think Rogan was irresponsible with ivermectin, but it does not reach the point where the government could legitimately censor him.
You don't need you to keep reminding of quotes about hitler. It doesn't somehow make your argument stronger to explain how the Nazis came to be.