Wow, that is some positively Orwellian double-speak there. "We need restrictions on speech to have free speech." Ummm.... how about, "no". Twitter has many issues to be sure, and the article is correct to make the distinction between "first amendment issues" and "free speech" in the general sense, but none of this means Twitter should back off on their commitment to free speech.

That said, one has to love an article that makes a point by quoting The Big Lebowski.

Its reasonable to quell shouting-down or hazing - some speech is antisocial and indeed needs to be restricted.

Why should person X decide what person Y is allowed to read? Just improve blocking, so that Y can decide what Y wants to read. I don't need big daddy to decide what would be good for me to read and what I better not read.