Katie Hopkins, the femme terrible of social media, has been banned for good from Twitter. Despite the relentless stream of incendiary comments the former Apprentice contestant has been posting for several years, the news came as something of a surprise.
Hopkins is a high-profile commentator on all sorts of issues, and had more than a million followers. Companies such as Twitter are often reluctant to ban accounts that generate as much interaction as hers did.
In November 2016, immediately after US presidential election, the Late Late Show invited Trump supporter Hopkins on as a guest. The segment was predictably excruciating.
A year later, TV3 thought it would be a good idea to send Lucy Kennedy to live with her for a week, perhaps in the belief it would make for good television to show the "real woman" behind the abrasive persona she displays in the media.
Simply allowing Hopkins to appear on Irish TV was a source of controversy, and I admit I was at the time appalled at the fact that RTE and TV3 seemed happy to give this women a platform to air her offensive opinions.
The right to freedom of expression is an emotive subject. Where unpopular opinions cross over into hate speech is a complex issue, and social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have long resisted attempts to be arbiters in this arena.
They're not publishers of the material, they insist, but simply provide the facilities for other people to express their opinions.
Some matters, such as Holocaust denial, would appear to be clear-cut, which is why the banning of historian David Irving would seem uncontroversial.
There's a campaign to have a well-known female Irish activist, who I can assure you is not related to me, banned from Twitter.
I'm in two minds as to whether it should occur.
Freedom of speech - one of the bedrocks of democratic, civilised society - means the right to express views that offend, shock and disturb, and not just the right to hold opinions that the majority share.
Once you deny a voice to people whose views you find offensive, you start to chip away at the democracy you claim to stand for.
The best way to counteract these arguments may be to hold them up to ridicule.
The argument against giving them such oxygen, of course, is that while Ryan Tubridy and Lucy Kennedy might try to challenge Hopkins, the minds of bigots are never going to be changed.
Looking at my disgust at the oxygen given to Hopkins, I confess my views are no longer so entrenched.
It's a complex, nuanced argument, and perhaps one best served by challenging the opinions you disapprove of in a public forum.
Whether Twitter is such a forum is another question.
If you're looking for nuanced argument, social media isn't a great place to start.