Free speech stops when it infringes someone else's rights. That's why threatening violence isn't covered. This should be obvious.
I also note that while the tweet was self-deleted, it's still out there now thanks to this tweet, and this post, and even my reply, much like telling a jury to disregard something that was objected to. They probably knew it too, the old post and delete method of getting people worked up and denying responsibility.
I’m not entirely sure, because I’ve never gotten the hang of Twitter. But reading between the lines, I think this is the sequence of events:
Libertarian twit tweets a death threat against Harris.
Libertarian twit is reminded of the rules (and common decency) and removes the offending tweet.
Libertarian twit passive aggressively tweets about having removed the tweet they twote, invoking the promises of free speech to imply that Leon was censoring their tweets and trampling on their freedoms.
Leon responds to the complaint with the tweet the twit twote, simultaneously demonstrating that the twit is a twat and amplifying the message.
Well I mean murdering someone breaks the very definition of libertarianism so you can be very sure they're just using that moniker because it fits whatever they're really trying to accomplish.
the maximum freedom for each individual to follow his own ways, his own values, as long as he doesn't interfere with anybody else who's doing the same.
Oh I know what definitonal Libertarianism is, but like you said, their rank and file typically reduce that to mean Rules for Thee but Not for Me. And subsequently that typically falls to white males upholding their privileges.
Modern “libertarianism” has been fully corrupted by both corporations (to mean “liberty from any and all government regulations”) and by the racist shithole fascists (to mean “my liberty to commit hate crimes and no liberty for everyone else”). It sucks because I mostly agree with the tagline, but people like Friedman are far too altruistic about how well corporations can operate without some level of government oversight to keep them actually accountable to the individuals that libertarianism is supposed to uphold.
they’re just using that moniker because it fits whatever they’re really trying to accomplish.
That’s what Libertarianism is. The same naming con also applies to the so-called Green Party. I don’t know why we are so easily fooled by names of things, especially when we live in a country full of scams where people constantly try to fool you like this. You’d think we’d develop a tolerance considering it’s a constant thing, but nope, we’re still just as stupid and naive as we were decades ago. If anything, we’ve gotten more naive.