In this instance is he really against free speech though? Seems like the struggle seems to be between his freedom of speech and twitter's. It all comes down to the question of whether twitter is a "publisher" with the freedom to edit/change content users post on its site. Seems like they want to be treated as both when its convenient for them.
His speech is still there it just has a commentary beside it. Nothing in 230 requires a company to be either neutral or hands off with user content to get protection from civil liabilities for moderation.
