[rootlocus]

> If you want to bring freedom of speech into this as a legal concept, then it does protect “hate and fear”.

Legally, nothing protects "hate and fear". That defeats the entire purpose of having laws.

> Twitter is not bound by such legal requirements,

How so? Every company is bound by legal requirements.

[wildmusings]

1. You're totally wrong about free speech in America. In the United States, "hate speech" and fearmongering are totally legal and protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has repeatedly and overwhelmingly so ruled.

2. Twitter is not bound by SUCH legal requirements, i.e. the requirement to allow freedom of speech among its users. The First Amendment only legally constrains the actions of the government (with very few exceptions, irrelevant here).