I don't believe that you can honestly say that the author's valuation of "celtics" over "bc_fan_news" or any other name does not come from the potential for misidentification and association with the Boston Celtics brand. It may not be the most thorough attempt at deception, but it is reasonable to call that a form of impersonation.
From a "libertarian/free market" perspective, why the hell should I favor the guy who made a stupid mistake in thinking that he owned something that he didn't? Your tangent on domain squatters is irrelevant, given that the rules of each system are completely different. Twitter usernames are not a free market, and it is utterly stupid to have thought that they were.
"guy who made a stupid mistake in thinking that he owned something that he didn't"
The point is that the Celtics organization doesn't deserve special treatment. Why is it "utterly stupid" to think that you could get some names (whether related to an organization or not) that you could later sell? As long as you don't think you are in violation of the TOS it seems pretty logical to me.
You don't get it. The Celtics don't own it either, and they'd be stupid to think they did. Twitter does. However:
"We reserve the right to reclaim usernames on behalf of businesses or individuals that hold legal claim or trademark on those usernames." -- http://twitter.com/terms
That gives them a pretty good reason to think it's OK to ask Twitter for the name. Bear in mind that Twitter has this right whether it is in the TOS or not, and that they likewise have the right to not reclaim usernames on behalf of trademark holders. If the situation had not been one where the user was obviously using the name to reference the trademark, maybe they wouldn't have.
And yes, he was making the assumption that he owned the names. How else can you complain that you've been deprived of something valuable that it was your right to have if you don't believe you own it?
From a "libertarian/free market" perspective, why the hell should I favor the guy who made a stupid mistake in thinking that he owned something that he didn't? Your tangent on domain squatters is irrelevant, given that the rules of each system are completely different. Twitter usernames are not a free market, and it is utterly stupid to have thought that they were.