There is a difference between the US enforcing visas within the borders of the country and the EU using their laws to affect an American website, allow slurping up data of Americans living in America outside of the EU's jurisduction. America already went to war to stop Europe from ruling over us. The legality of operating every jurisdiction is going to be more complicated due to having to deal with unreasonable demands of foriegn countries or contradicting laws. It's much more complicated than a country enforcing who can be within their borders with visas where the US has clear jurisdiction. If you were to ask me if I think X should respect US law like the DMCA I would say they should absolutely be following US law.

So if Twitter complied with the demands such that flagged EU-illegal content still remains available to non-EU (e.g. US) visitors, thus not removing anything on the demands of a foreign jurisdiction, in your eyes it would suddenly no longer be a case of "anti-free-speech insanity"?

Cause the whole "they're ordering around an American company" defense falls apart pretty quickly when said American company also operates (read: is accessible from) within EU borders, and in general can be used by citizens of EU member states (independent of their location).