I assume you mean a slope away from free speech?
If so, I don't agree. There is a pretty clear difference between speech, and inciting action. Inciting violent acts has always been against the law, and has it not slipped any, yet.
Martin is not being jailed because of his opinions, but because of an attempt to instigate a physical encounter.
While partially true, the only reason he is being charged is because of the infamous nature of Bill Clinton's wife. If he would have made the same statement about the average citizen nothing would have happened. This is elitist privilege dictating the outcome of a criminal case.
You may have a point there.
When the law is not evenly enforced, it is corrupt.
But I think that's a different issue that affects more than just speech.
In this case, while there may be other problems, I don't see an attack on, or threat to, free speech.
Shkreli made a shitpost and got his bail revoked because of it. I post some stupid god damn shit online, and if you take many of my posts out of context, then I should probably spend a life sentence in prison, right?
A shit-post would be immune. There has to be a credible threat.
The courts decided this time there was. It's a bit weak in my opinion, but I can see the point.
It would have been reasonable to fear that someone would have tried to collect on his offer.
He was known for being wealthy, unscrupulous, and a drama whore.
It is not reasonable to take your shit-posting seriously, though.
This is a slippery slope we are headed down.