Twitter has the legal and personal right to boot whomever it wants off its platform, just like any private corporation (although in Australia there'd be protections against discrimination, including - in some states - political opinion discrimination.)

But does that mean that Twitter made the right call this time?

One issue is whether Trump's tweets were themselves illegal. That's unlikely, given that he (and Twitter) are in the United States. Incitement is only illegal under narrow conditions there: https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/08/can-president-trump-be-impeached-and-removed-on-the-grounds-of-incitement/

A second issue is whether Trump's tweets caused the Capitol invasion. That might seem obvious, but it isn't - Trump's rally at the Ellipse is a much more obvious culprit. He and others have many outlets, but most of us online folks mainly see his tweets.

A third issue is whether, a permanent suspension is a good remedy for illegal or culpable tweets. That's not at all clear.

Sure, delete the offending tweets. But why delete ALL of his past tweets? Why ban ALL of his future ones?

Twitter doesn't have to pursue nuanced solutions, and presumably has no interest in doing so. But that doesn't mean we should applaud that.

I suspect that Twitter's approach is deliberately punitive: to deter similar conduct by others. And that should make us hesitate.

Deterring Trump-like conduct sure sounds nice. But the catch is that we will all disagree on what Trump-like conduct looks like, when it isn't Trump doing the conduct. Does anyone know what Twitter's definition is?

Again, to be clear, none of these things affects Twitter's legal rights to suspend him on whatever grounds it wants. But it does affect the question of whether doing so is a good idea and one we should applaud.

As always, the issue isn't Trump, but what comes next. What if Bernie calls for protests against Biden's lacklustre presidency and some Bernie Bros riot? What if Biden (or Bandt?) tweets support for BLM protests and they go out-of-control? What do you want Twitter to do?

I'm pretty sure what the courts would do In South Africa, where everyone - companies, governments, individuals -are bound by their bill of rights. The Constitutional Court has a VERY different take to Twitter's on free speech and incitement: http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2020/25.html

That Court is no fan of violence, or of stupid leaders mouthing off(of which SA has many, pre- and post-.) But it nevertheless struck down, as disproportionate and arbitrary, incitement charges against a political leader who expressly called for illegal occupation of property.

Again, Twitter isn't a South African company, and (I guess) the US isn't South Africa. But, to me, I think part of the answer to 'what should Twitter do?' is to look at 'what did a court do in a country in the aftermath of decades of protest against an evil government?'