I disagree. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence. His consequence is that the other people that live in the society he shares is fed up with him and do not want him to take part in it anymore. He can go somewhere else. We don’t want to hear it.
I used to feel the same in these situations, but then I learned about the paradox of tolerance. Now I am much more of the opinion that James is free to say whatever he wants about any subject, but no one is required to give him a platform to do so.
I don't understand free speech absolutists. You don't think that maybe calling for all Palestinians to be killed is maybe a bit genocidal and should perhaps be discouraged on a social media platform?
Mind you this isn't a law and wouldn't lead to any actual limiting of liberties, it just means we discourage genocide on social media. Something that seems pretty reasonable to me, and I think any large enough platform should probably feel some obligation to do.