It's more complicated than that. FTFA:

> He quoted an NBC spokesman as saying: "Our social media department was actually alerted to it by Twitter and then we filled out the form and submitted it."

So yeah, a complaint was filed, but the alleged violation was initially identified by Twitter.

So are you saying that even if Twitter knows about Spike Lee's violation (which they likely do), Twitter does not have to act unless somebody files a complaint?

I wonder if the NBC exec filed the complaint personally. After all, if it was his, 'private' information and email address, then what standing does the NBC intern have who filled the complaint have? Just a concerned citizen? Oh, but it wasn't a private email was it? I'm confused. A person tweets the corporate contact email of an executive and that's not ok? But Spike Lee tweets the personal address of someone he thought was Zimmerman's with the presumption that someone would act on that information and that's ok? Spike Lee potentially endangered a life (the people at address received death threats).. What's the worst that could have happened to an NBC exec-- he gets a strongly worded letter? Twitter should always come out in the side of presuming free speech unless that speech violates the law. Tweeting someone's email address does not meet that standard. And, the fun part is that NBC is a public company. Shareholders technically have a right to information regarding the executive team in the context of their role at the company.

C'mon Twitter, don't be evil.