The double standard that I see is this: everyone fights for free speech all the time, but the moment free speech laws lead to libel cases that get thrown out due to general haziness, everyone is up in arms. The last time I was in London, the front page of the Evening Whatever was all agog with a twitter case -- some loser had told a female MP he was going to come rape her etc. Big deal. Front page for a while. I think he was ultimately prosecuted -- but that was London. In the US, with Brandenburg, before you can prosecute you have to prove the threat is real. I think the point that was made at the time was: sure, maybe the twitter loser isn't going to come kill her but being called a cunt &c and then having your name splashed everywhere and having to look over your shoulder just in case and having people come out of the woodwork on twitter in support of the twitter rapist ... all for saying something about, abortion probably, maternity laws, I don't know ... well, that's some severe psychological trauma. But in America, it's too "abstract," so nothing happens. People say stupid shit on twitter all the time; no one ever gets in trouble. I think people have a tendency to a) want their free speech, and b) not want anyone to publicly tell their politicians they deserve to be raped. Both of those things are reasonable, but in the US they are contradictory. And then there's the other point of view, adequately summed up by the twitter loser: EDIT: jesus christ it was something a lot fucking dumber than abortion or maternity laws, that's for sure."If you can't threaten to rape a celebrity, what is the point in having them?"
I definitely see where you're coming from here. I think the internet has caused both subtle and drastic shifts in how we communicate with one another. Internet mobs are a fairly new thing and increasingly courts will have to address where along that line they fall. With so many new modes of communications in today's world, individuals and institutions need to adapt.