Having free speech means having unpopular speech. Some people may have forgotten that. Or, in the case of Twitter users, they never knew it.

While true, I have a hard time imagining what it must be like for those who grew up welded to social media. I use Twitter occasionally, but I've never been the subject of a Twitstorm of any kind. I can't imagine when someone is in a fairly important (to them) social network and suddenly finds themselves the target of a bunch of assholes.

One must also note that speech on Twitter, Facebook, etc. isn't "free" in the same way as public speaking. Unless the government makes them a public platform, those who own it can dictate whatever terms they want (or find most profitable). It's their playground, and they can police it any way they want to because it's not truly a public space.

Following up on my reply to mechanical contrivance, conservatives, especially Libertarians, should be torn on this issue:

1. In theory, they want everyone to be free to say what they want. At least, they want to be able to say whatever they want, no matter how ugly it might be.

2. The freedom of speech covers only speech censure by the government. None of the entities involved are publicly owned. The only impediment to their policies is being abandoned by the users.

Really, this isn't about Constitutional free speech, as Facebook, Twitter, etc. are privately owned. It would be a curious case to bring before the courts that if a given media company gets to be so large as to be nearly unavoidable, would they be required to adhere to Constitutional rights or not?

There's a difference between libertarians and WATBs. It is subtle, slight, and almost imperceptible, but it is there. The complaints in the article are from the former.

It sucks when you want to defend hate filled morons but I do think they should have the right. Arresting someone because they are riling the masses is too close to political policing.

I prefer the US definition of (non-protected) hate speech, which according to Brandenburg v. Ohio is speech that promotes "imminent lawlessness or violence".

Still though, fuck people who use hate speech.