I really do believe arguments about the 'freedom' of speech should be kept to the context of government versus the populace.
The government censors people through force, sometimes in autocracies this quite literally means a gun to a dissenter's head.
It is a separate thing all together, On the other hand, if individuals freely choose to criticize, flame, or just simple disassociate themselves with someone else because they disapprove of their opinions. We should all be free to do at least this without fear that merely by agreeing with the majority we will be accused of 'censoring' the minority.
The point is, some types of free speech should be encouraged and some types discouraged. I think you should be allowed to flame people, but I'm not obligated to provide you a venue to do so, and I'd really rather you didn't.
No, thats defamation/libel, and it is a civil offense, even a criminal offense in some cases. Free speech is not an unconditional right, it places responsibilities on those who exercise it.
Defamation laws are one of those laws that skirt on a thin-line of interfering with free speech rights (similar to hate crime laws).
It's also not simply offending language that equals defamation.
From wikipedia:
"Opinion is a defence recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable."
also
"In Common Law it is usually a requirement that this claim be false."
>It's also not simply offending language that equals defamation.
Based on the post, many of the tweets were insult - direct attacks against the author, and not simply criticism/opinions.
All but 4 states in the US also recognize cases of defamation per se, where the truth of the claims is irrelevant, and the damages are predetermined. Claims which impute the following fall under that category (I've omitted 2 of the 4):
1. Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession"
2. Allegations or imputations "of loathsome disease" (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness)
Many of the tweets directed at him fall into that category, and hence are defamation per se.
Defamation per se is very limited under the First Amendment, and mostly historical at this point, dating from an era when courts would entertain prosecutions for calling someone's honor into question. To the extent it survives, it's been limited mostly to where "regular" defamation would also apply, to false statements of fact. For example, "injurious to another in their trade" can't be used to prosecute any comment that could harm someone's business, but only false factual statements that could do so, such as accusing someone of selling counterfeit parts. Nowadays the only real distinction is in showing damages: in a per se category, once defamation is proven, the plaintiff doesn't have to further prove that they were harmed, because harm is assumed in those categories.
I think mostly we're discussing something else here, angry and vitriolic "piling-on" responses, which is a different issue from defaming someone.