The anonymous account’s impact is deep and far-reaching. Its content is amplified by high-profile media figures, politicians and right-wing influencers. Its tweets reach millions, with influence spreading far beyond its more than 648,000 Twitter followers. Libs of TikTok has become an agenda-setter in right-wing online discourse, and the content it surfaces shows a direct correlation with the recent push in legislation and rhetoric directly targeting the LGBTQ+ community.
A Twitter account with hundreds of thousands of followers is influential the article notes that the name is being trademarked as a news reporter service. This is public facing speech.
Now, the irony here is that the same free speech that allows this platform to be so controversial is why exposing the person behind the account is ok. You may want a kinder public forum but it is odd to attack your political opponents and then be unwilling to stand behind your words. But this isn't a very useful perspective:
After all, the account exists to publicize offensive content, at least content offensive to a right wing perspective. One key thing in the Washington Post piece is that it is clear that specific people are identified in the account, which is fair play. But I think if we apply equal standards to the account then it is just applying the same principles consistently.
This was a good ideas for the sort of journalistic principle involved here. Insofar as the person in question is a political operative, and the article makes a good case, there is a lot of room to consider this to be in the public interest.
I think one could ask whether the first amendment should consider respect and kindness as possible features. But I understand why it does not. But if you are going to advocate for it, then the natural result of this type of "market place of ideas" is that you will need to accept the consequences of your speech, Free speech, without consequences, is privileged speech (like that of a king) and exactly what the amendment was intended to avoid.