@MrLizard I'm in total agreement with you. Twitter is not the government, and they should be able to shape their public image if they choose to do so. If the government mandated it, it would be censorship, but Twitter is business, and public image has an impact on how profitable they can be. @webbew1

Is there a whitetrashapedia?

@godef Probably, look for it in the coming weeks.

If they did start their own web service, just for haters, that would be fine with me, as fewer of them would be using other social media if they had their own space to spew their hate.

You are wrong. Your constitutional rights end when they begin to violate someone else's. If "free expression" is used to threaten or intimidate a people, this is a violation of their civil rights. Therefore, it is not free expression, it is hate speech, and hate speech is a form of terrorism.

Agreed, nerdy. Violence as an adjective is subjective. Take your gun nuts who claim they need their guns to save themselves from government intrusion. They certainly have the right to express their opinions, but not the right to stock up for Armageddon.

Jay, I'll pull back on saying your wrong; people do have the right to discuss their opinions in a "constructive" fashion. It's more the rhetoric that I go after, that led to tiki-torch rampages.