My understanding, and I could have misread the article, but my understating is, that this is a private party that wants the data in a civil matter. Free speech

My understanding, and I could have misread the article, but my understating is, that this is a private party that wants the data in a civil matter. Free speech has it's limits and in this case it appears that limit is libel. The governments only involvement is in the interest of that private parties case, in which a civil offense is alleged (libel). Also, I am not advocation for Twitter to make the decision to open their platform to the ills of society. I know the practicality and the ramifications of letting every troll have a voice on any platform they choose, but I do see "hypocrisy" in protecting the anonymity of a troll (generally wrapped up in free speech and association), when one engaging in censoring the spirit of free speech via their platform. I fully understand and support their right to do so, but they are doing so on the back side of this because it serves their interest, not because they are a beacon of free speech and I see it hypocritical to run to hide behind the law once you need it, when one does not subscribe to the spirit of the law, even if it cannot be applied to your entity. To be clear, I don't want any platform to be forced to accept the dregs of society, but I also don't want to see them hide behind regulation when it suits them. Especially when using a law that restrains the government, as a shield against a harmed (allegedly) private parties interest, in a case where, if true, the offending parties right to free speech legally ended at libel. Also a point of clarity I was not trying to insinuate that the bill of rights can or should be applied to private entities. I am clear on the fact that it restrains what the government can and cannot do. I apologize if that was not clear in my post. I still contend that Twitter, the organization, is being hypocritical here.