These are all valid points that you may strongly disagree with, but at least recognize that they don't require being sympathetic to Jones. E.g. the first two are just a very extreme position on the general freedom-of-speech scale, which some people hold for purely ideological reasons. Similarly, the third and the fourth are also a matter of justice and fairness in the abstract - that the punishment ought to be the same for the same crime. And so on.
Indeed, I would say that most commenters on this story that take one or more of those positions explicitly state that they're doing so as a matter of principle. Which, given the prevailing attitudes hereabouts on topics such as freedom of speech, is quite believable - so why are you assuming some other sinister motivation?
Indeed, I would say that most commenters on this story that take one or more of those positions explicitly state that they're doing so as a matter of principle. Which, given the prevailing attitudes hereabouts on topics such as freedom of speech, is quite believable - so why are you assuming some other sinister motivation?