Reporting on something that harasses or incites violence is not endorsement of it. Actively spreading the harassing or inciting material is an implicit endorsement - you could stop it if you wanted.
Hosting an open forum is not the same as endorsing ideas on said forum.
In fact, I would argue strongly to the contrary-twitter has an implicit social responsibility to allow all dialogue, as it is effectively in a position to limit speech, given the size of its audience and its position as a disseminator of information.
Do you really want faceless corporations like Facebook, google, and twitter deciding what is and is not appropriate material? Especially when they effectively have more immediate power in censoring or creating narratives than our own government?
Or are you implying that they are allowed, but only with commentary that condemns them? Then you are discriminating based on opinion. You are turning Twitter into a platform in which only certain opinions are allowed, even though the prohibited ones have the support of half of the United States. There is no way around this. You must allow the words of the President.
This is exactly the kind of myopic mindset that makes me worry about twitter censoring speech. Not to mention how easy such censorship is to abuse in order to, say, craft a narrative...
Legally, nothing protects "hate and fear". That defeats the entire purpose of having laws.
> Twitter is not bound by such legal requirements,
How so? Every company is bound by legal requirements.
2. Twitter is not bound by SUCH legal requirements, i.e. the requirement to allow freedom of speech among its users. The First Amendment only legally constrains the actions of the government (with very few exceptions, irrelevant here).