Any limitation to speech implies that speech was never free, by definition. So, there is no reasonable limitation that preserves the "free" part of "free speech".

Let's consider some implications of what you're saying.

- Slander and libel are restrictions on free speech.

- Restrictions on any type of public insult, racial slur, hate speech or other derogatory speech are restrictions on free speech.

- Any restriction on the advertising of explicit pornography or illegal activities would also be a restriction on free speech.

If your argument is that absolute, then no, I don't support absolute free speech without qualification. I can't prove it, but I would assume that the majority of the population would rightfully take the same position that free speech should not utterly absolute with no restriction at all.

It doesn't matter if the majority thinks like me or not. That's the point of free speech, to let people think and speak freely. If you're against free speech, you have every right to be, but don't try to justify it by twisting words. Just say it: I do not support free speech.

Before pontificating so very much about what "free speech" is, would it be too much to ask if I requested that you learn the most basic concepts about free speech, and also figure out that actions by Twitter have no relevance whatsoever to the freedom of expression as defined in the First Amendment?

> would it be too much to ask if I requested that you learn the most basic concepts about free speech

If you think I'm missing something, tell me.

> figure out that actions by Twitter have no relevance whatsoever to the freedom of expression as defined in the First Amendment?

So? What's the first amendment got to do in this situation?