No, I didn't. He made a strawman about a practice that is currently illegal and has been illegal for hundreds of years of common law. Literally threatening someone's life with summary execution is illegal whether by one person or 255K. The 255K scenario is meant to be a hyperbolic example, but the truth is that such threats do exist for people on the internet and more often than not those types of threats come implicitly from sovereign powers who have access to such numbers of henchmen.
How much more important is it then, to protect free speech on the internet, when so much power and threats are wielded in far more subtle and insidious ways?
How much more important is it then, to protect free speech on the internet, when so much power and threats are wielded in far more subtle and insidious ways?