You speak of "blatant parody humour using impersonantion". That seems a confused phrase. If an account is blatantly a parody, then it is not committing imperson

You speak of "blatant parody humour using impersonantion". That seems a confused phrase. If an account is blatantly a parody, then it is not committing impersonation, because if someone knows that an account is a parody of a person, they also know it is not the person itself. If you want to make a blatant parody account, you may do so according to the current Twitter TOS. However, if you want to impersonate someone, you may not do that. Your gooogle.com example doesn't seem to connect to the situation at hand, which is about whether it is against the principles of freedom of speech to place limits on impersonation even in such cases where no fraud is being committed. My goal is that people should be allowed to express all views and criticise all people. If for whatever reason impersonation must be outlawed, so be it - it may in fact further the goals for which I support freedom of speech.