Jup. If everybody is allowed to say whatever they want, the side with the sticks will use it to threaten those with slightly less sticks into silence.
Which ironically means that collectively speech will be more free if you prohibit certain types of it for all. A free society doesn't strictly have to tolerate anti-free-society positions like those of ISIS terrorists or neo-nazis — some (including Karl Popper) would say that a free society that wants to stay free, has a duty to be intolerant towards the intolerant.
Free speech, US-style was never about freedom, it was always about who wields the stick.
Frankly, if the society is so fragmented that the court of public opinion doesn't get genuine neo-Nazis laughed out of town, I don't think the primary issue is whether Xitter (I like that term LOL) or other platforms strictly uphold free speech. I think we'd better fix the people first, either the neo-Nazis or everyone else, so that they don't have a foothold on the Internet or in ways that matter.
The problem with the current state of society is that we don't know whether this is normal or not. We never had a society, ever, that had something like the internet.
So I think it is very likely that applying all the old ideas to a new world will not get us far. But yeah, in the end having people that care enough to do something is always a precondition for keeping a society free.
Which ironically means that collectively speech will be more free if you prohibit certain types of it for all. A free society doesn't strictly have to tolerate anti-free-society positions like those of ISIS terrorists or neo-nazis — some (including Karl Popper) would say that a free society that wants to stay free, has a duty to be intolerant towards the intolerant.
Free speech, US-style was never about freedom, it was always about who wields the stick.