Also, I believe a person's freedom of speech ends when speech creates a real threat to another person's safety. These kinds of tweets definitely create a threat to the recipient's safety.

In that case the boundaries of freedom are not defined by the constitution any more, but by private parties. Therefore any constitutional stipulation of 'freedom of speech' is practically worthless. Freedom can not only be measured by the existence of a constitutional construct.

When it's between two private parties, you're damn right that the boundaries of freedom are defined by those two parties. Freedom of Speech only applies to the government and to government use of force.

I'm sure the guys who penned the constitution would agree that it wasn't about giving you the freedom to act like a jackass without repercussions.

Too many people seem to justify their lynch ochlocratic actions on the internet by saying "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from repercussions."

There's a difference between "freedom from legal repercussions", and "if you tweet this people all over will think you're a scumbag and maybe even a creep, and in the real world this has repercussions that don't have to involve the justice system".

Too many people seem to justify their disgusting and mysogynistic comments by saying "I have a right to free speech".

Too many people seem to think they are the moral authority on what reprocussions are appropriate.

Not at all. Should you not be free to hire and fire your employees depending on who you want to represent your company? Or are you advocating some sort of affirmative action for asshats?

You're totally right. If I managed a team of employees and I saw this in the news the next day, there's no way I would keep that person employed.

On an unrelated note, I think you win the best username award :P