I think you've lost track of the context. The point is that nobody here was arrested and had his "life ruined" solely on the charge of having posted a link. Nor would the government ever be likely indict someone on only that basis (unless the case was very compelling, see below), given the significant likelihood of the sole charge being dismissed.

> No, we shouldn't. . . . (absent actual participation in a conspiracy)

That's not too different from what we're talking about , is it? Actual participation in a conspiracy (which, no doubt about it, can be accomplished by posting a link) or, I would add, acting as an accomplice.

But while I'm at it, your broader claim is also incorrect. How about perjury? You can do that in writing. Slander? Intentional infliction of emotional distress? Threatening the president? Mail fraud? Criminal contempt? Murder for hire? All crimes accomplished by writing about something that exist, yes, in a country protected by the right to free speech. There are many more.

Again, it's not the speech that's being criminalized; it's the intent animating it. Think of the link not as a crime in and of itself, but simply as evidence of Brown's effort to assist in the real crime, which was unambiguously illegal. If you follow the case closely, you'll see that's exactly what's being charged.