[terminus]

> But punitive action against people you disagree with is simply unacceptable!

Where your argument falls down is in just reducing this to "people you disagree with." Nazis (even lately) have been responsible for more than just polite disagreements.

For instance Jason Kessler one of the neo-Nazis/white-supremacists was involved in the neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville which devolved into violence and one death.

Free speech absolutism [1] is good, but I draw the line at speech leading to violence.

[1] Sidepoint, but framing this as a free speech question is IMO disingenuous because nobody's speech is being taken away here. Just verification from twitter.

[chrismcb]

Are you suggesting everyone in Charlottesville that weekend sounds be punished, or just the people you disagree with. Did Jason say something that led to the driver going berzerk? Nazis aren't the only ones with more than like disagreements, and most neonazis don't fall into that category either

[mankash666]

Decertification is certainly a violation of free speech. It's a way for Twitter to de-legitimize people who'd previously proved their legitimacy the Twitter.

[terminus]

Yes, and as I said above: good for Twitter.

However, I notice that you don't have much to say about my argument against speech leading to violence. What do you think about that.

[JungleGymSam]

What is "speech leading to violence"? What's the statute of limitations on said such?

[terminus]

I'd say, speech leading to violence is like pornography; you know it when you see it. And I would refer you to the examples I have in the comment.

Given the subjective nature of the test there will be cases when it's less clear cut. But I think that's better than status quo.