What a weird article.
The author admits at the start to being completely misinformed about Amy having assumed that she had been "taking advantage of a guise of “free speech” to directly go after the dignity and humanity of vulnerable individuals in the pursuit of her policy objectives."
But after looking a bit deeper finds that Amy's older tweets weren't actually anywhere near as hateful as JM had assumed and actually JM could envisage a situation where they (JM and Amy) might have been friends :/
"The Hamm portrayed in these documents — someone I could possibly have envisaged as a friend"
BUT sadly (JM laments at the end), Amy has been altered, "perhaps irrevocably", by becoming more strident in her views; a result perhaps of the ongoing legal process and the impingement of Amy's free speech.
(I'm assuming now that a friendship is off the table)