Why is it that people who support Linus' tirades and mention freedom of speech, etc get so incredibly hurt when others exercise their own freedom of speech and point out how abusive they are?
That's a fundamental difference.
If they get hurt (big "if"), then they are still not saying "and that means you are not allowed to talk".
Are you seeing an inconsistency that I'm not?
How about, "you should stop talking about how that guy should stop talking"? Does that qualify too?
Does every meta-level have the same problem, or is there a limit to how deep it goes?
No, they're saying stop being a jerk.
The only way that translates to "you should stop talking" is if said person is incapable of communicating whilst not being a jerk.
There may be jerk behaviour. I'm not saying there isn't. I did not mean to address that part at all. I'm saying there's no hypocrisy.
Because they don't think it's abusive. If it isn't (I personally think it is), then pointing "out how abusive they are" comes off as passive aggressively saying they shouldn't express themselves in a certain way. That is effectively telling them they can not speak certain things that they feel are an important part of their ability to express certain ideas. It may as well be needless censorship, in their minds.
Clearly the best response would be to calmly explain why expressing themselves in that way is important. But they're on the defensive, and honestly think aggression is a good way to express themselves, so -in their minds- why should they be calm about it?
And then to the next level. And the next. Ad infinitum.
It's totally unproductive.