You think Twitter Legal looked this over and thought "We like the ban against attacking other people based on race but let's throw in an adjective...like, directly, to spice up that sentence"
People have been free to spout on Twitter, including what they thought about breakfast or about what they think about the world including racial politics and theories. There's a difference between saying what's on your mind -- e.g. "Fuck Asia" -- and attacking someone because of their race, e.g. "Someone ought to kick your ass for being Asian"
It's the attack on individuals -- users, typically -- that makes all the difference. Am I unhappy that the KKK is still an active organization? Sure, in theory, but in practice I'm OK if they follow the same laws I do and don't shove their beliefs down my throat. However, when a KKK member sends out mailers to the community saying, "Dan and his kind do not belong here; remind him of that by going to where he lives and works (addresses below)" -- that's still free speech, but the line between free speech and harassment is not brightly delimited. The practical matter of it is, it's much easier for someone to allege personal damages and harm when there that someone is personally targeted. Yes, that's a tautology, but one that has real world impact on the kinds of complaints that rise to public notice.
> directly attack other people
?
You think Twitter Legal looked this over and thought "We like the ban against attacking other people based on race but let's throw in an adjective...like, directly, to spice up that sentence"
People have been free to spout on Twitter, including what they thought about breakfast or about what they think about the world including racial politics and theories. There's a difference between saying what's on your mind -- e.g. "Fuck Asia" -- and attacking someone because of their race, e.g. "Someone ought to kick your ass for being Asian"