I would love to see what the "valid reasons" could be. Part of the problem with online "speech" is that it isn't real. It's speech between or among parties who are not facing one another, remote participants who are interacting in a two-dimensional world.

Again, I have difficulty with the underlying naivete of this article. There isn't anything that is truly free, especially not "free" beer or "free" kittens (or cute animals of any sort) or free news or free media. Somebody pays for it, one way or another. That "free" beer usually comes with a price tag: cover or door charge (minimum menu purchase); that "free" kitten requires food, care, vet bills, etc. I suggest that we start with defining exactly what we mean by "free" online speech and for what purpose(s) we want to support it and how much it will actually cost in terms of funding (hosting servers), managing (controlling/tracking/indexing) the posts (and archives), and to whom the participants are accountable.

Again, the underlying assumption that any restriction on the mythical "freedom of speech" is a restriction on a right is misstaken. The "power to shape the tone [or content] of a social interaction" is indeed "liable to be misused by the powerful" or the powers that have control of the government. That has always been a factor in the practical control of free speech. The misuse is, of course, a matter for litigation and has always been litigious struggle within the powers that contend for control within the US government since it began. "Free speech" has never been truly free in the US.

There are many restrictions on "free expression." There is an unusual assumption underlying this paragraph, that controlling free expression is anti-democratic.

Freedom is anarchy unless there is accountability. Free speech is not really "free." Even in the US Constitution, "free speech" is actually not a right but rather Congress may not create laws abridging the freedom of speech. Nevertheless, it has and States have created laws that limit the extent to which freedom of speech may be exercised, primarily to preserve an orderly and safe civil society. Too often, "free speech" is interpreted as a right to say anything. We need to disabuse ourselves of that myth. We do not have the right to say anything, especially if it may be libel, a call to riot or commit crime, treasonous, etc. Because the internet initially allowed participants in discussion boards and chat rooms to be "anonymous," we created a "world" in which people could become trolls, post hate speech, and share "post-truth" information as though it were fact. To create a safe place for responsible, accountable persons to share and exchange ideas "freely," we need to control the behavior of "anonymous" participants and require accountability.

With some books, particularly with ones of which I'm fond (e.g., the collective works of Robert Frost), the margins become space for "annotations" that are journal entries of a sort of my readings of poems.

The guilty feelings of intellectuals.

Not today. If anything they're irreverent.

I like the image of writing notes in the margins as a form of physical violence against the author. Not that I would, but sometimes, you feel like you ought to throttle the author for either being oblique or condescending. LOL.

TASS is run by the Russian government and reportedly controlled by Putin. Do we have any other sources for official Russian government response to Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko's claim that Thursday's killing of Denis Voronenkov is a Russian terrorist act?

What evidence supports this claim. Are recruiters reporting that college graduates are unable to show proficiency in fact-checking sources or evaluating and verifying information they find on the internet?