> Her speech was not compelled.

"Don't say this thing, or we'll ban you forever from the platform."

If I walk up to you and say, "Don't say this thing, or me and my 9 associates here will punch you in the face," that's compulsion. Period.

That you're equating being removed from twitter with being physically threatened is telling. They aren't comparable. A physical I threat of violence is compelling, yes, in a way that being removed from a website isn't. She could post the same thing on HN, right now. So compelling!

Good. It should be telling. I'm all-in on free speech. I support the right of everyone, anywhere, to say whatever they want, whenever they want, as long as it adheres to the First Amendment.

Chomsky said it best: "If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.”

And you're welcome to hold that view. But conflating threats with 1st amendment protected action is dumb.

And yes, Twitter, under the first amendment, is free to associate with whomever they want (or to refuse to associate with them)! Twitter isn't compelling Meghan Murphy to do anything anymore than than twitter is, at this moment, compelling me to give them my wallet.

On the other hand, if you said "Give me your wallet, or me and my 9 associates here will punch you in the face," you'd be committing a crime.

That's the difference between being kicked off twitter and punching someone in the face. One of them is a crime. No matter how purely you uphold the principle of free speech, it doesn't make sense to compare someone who doesn't share those values to a criminal.