i think that standing up for his rights, in context, means a request for the application of due process. this is a scenario where i think a court would actually be in it's jurisdiction to restrict trump access to the tools of communication with his audience, as he's demonstrated legitimate malice in it's use. like, if we apply the logical legal steps, we still find trump guilty - we find him more guilty, as we've demonstrated his guilt through facts and logic. and, while i'd like to see those formal steps articulated, the correct side of the argument is to shut him down. in legalese, the court orders an injunction while the proceedings develop - and i believe it should, given the circumstances.
unfortunately, the legal structure that i'm referencing to adjudicate the harmfulness of speech does not exist in really any country, leaving what are clearly legal decisions to be decided by private companies. in this case, while the steps are heavy-handed, they got the legal decision right, i think; if a court existed, they would order trump shut down via injunction, as the case to determine the harmfulness of his speech continues forwards. and, that's because trump's tweets, right now, legitimately fall into the category of legitimately harmful, actually influential speech. this is the exception,,,,
so, if you want a liberal defense of trump's speech rights. that's what it means - arguing for due process, and realizing he'll still lose when he gets it.
what does that mean moving forward? well, fuck, he's going to be dead in a few years. i dunno; who cares, really. i don't think he'll remain quite so dangerous in a few months time.