Let's be clear about two things: Milo Yiannopoulos's freedom of speech has not been curtailed, and Twitter is still one of the greatest cesspools/Garden of Edens of human expression ever invented.
Mr. Yiannopoulos, a self-styled provocateur at the American conservative website Breitbart, rose to fame on Twitter by mocking people for their political correctness, which is fair game. But he also became a master at mockery based on gender, sexual orientation and race, and his words often encouraged his legions of less-sophisticated followers to pile on. He was repeatedly warned to clean up his act by Twitter officials, and even had his account suspended twice for brief periods.
He continued his branding antics nonetheless, most recently attacking one of the stars of Ghostbusters, Leslie Jones. He hated her movie and its politics – fair enough – but his comments about her physical appearance prompted like-minded trolls to gang up on Ms. Jones and compete with each other to tweet the most vile, racist things imaginable to her account. She was eventually driven from Twitter, announcing on Tuesday that she couldn't take the hate any more (although she was back on Twitter by Thursday).
After Twitter's CEO reached out to Ms. Jones, the service decided to permanently suspend Mr. Yiannopoulos's account, in spite of his protests that he is not responsible for what others do (wink, wink).
His relentless abuse was a stupid move. Mr. Yiannopoulos had Twitter at his disposal to help expand his visibility at no cost, but he couldn't play by the rules and now he's gone.
No, Mr. Yiannopoulos does not appear to have broken any laws. But that's not what's at issue. For despite his purple lamentations, this has nothing at all to do with his right to freedom of speech. That essential right protects people against government censorship. But Twitter isn't the government. It's a private company and, like all private media companies, it is free to decide who it will publish and who it won't. It is not contradictory to refuse to take part in abuse and to embrace free speech at the same time, a fact that is lost on far too many people on Twitter and elsewhere these days.
Plus, Mr. Yiannopoulos most certainly still has a voice, including on the popular right-wing news and opinion website where he serves as an editor. He can also use Facebook, Snapchat and other services. He has hardly been silenced.
That's not the end of the story, though. Twitter may have singled out one high-profile abuser, but in doing so it has opened up an econo-size can of worms for itself.
As Mr. Yiannopoulos and his supporters have pointed out, there are active Twitter accounts held by members of Islamic State, by neo-Nazis, and by other violent and hateful organizations and people. There are also plenty among Twitter's more than 300 million users who post racist, misogynistic and hateful messages; who bully and threaten people of all creeds, genders and colours in spite of clearly stated rules prohibiting users from doing such things.
Now that Twitter has made it clear that it is going to deal with those who violate its rules, is it going to do more than just a hit-and-miss job of it? Or is it going to shut down strong arguments in a place that, though it is private, has become a global public square? Users regularly complain to Twitter about the alleged abuse they see online, and then complain again when no action is taken. Meanwhile, the people who are banned say that they were merely engaging in political or satirical speech and are the victims of censorship.
Is it even possible for Twitter to monitor all the unpleasantness flowing through its servers? Should it even try?
It can't and it shouldn't. Twitter's terms of service are actually well-suited to its role as a network where people can freely share information and ideas. The rules correctly say nothing about offensive and mean-spirited messages, which are rife on the Internet as a whole. Ms. Jones herself, who is a standup comic as well as an actress, has tweeted racially tinged jokes that some people find distasteful. On most days, Twitter's implicit credo is, If you don't like it, don't look at it. Just as the company is free to cut off a user, so are you free to stop using Twitter if you don't like what you come across.
But when it comes to abuse, Twitter says it will prohibit behaviour "that harasses, intimidates, or uses fear to silence another user's voice." It is one thing to post a mean, racist or rude opinion; it's another thing entirely to threaten another user with harm, or to mob up and bombard her with racist epithets and crude sexual references.
As long as Twitter differentiates between a garden-variety speech and abusive threats sent with the intention of silencing other people, it will be walking the correct, if often unpopular, line.
Even the social media accounts held by grotesque groups such as Islamic State may have their place. We are probably better off knowing what these madmen are saying. Reporters and researchers regularly visit these accounts to gauge the status of terrorist organizations and to check their latest claims against reality.
Twitter is right to make a loud statement that it will not tolerate repeated abuse of users by other users. But it would be wise to be reluctant about overdoing its policing. It should avoid the trap of censoring speech solely on the grounds that some people, or even may people, find it offensive. One person's offensiveness is another person's strong argument. And a lot of social media is about arguments. Strong words will be used, feelings will be hurt, and emotions will boil.
Twitter, like free speech itself, will be of no value at all unless it is messy, complicated and not always pleasant to take part in.