From Howard Dean [0]:
>You are a facilitator of neo nazis and other haters. You should be tried for being an accomplice to murder. You’re lucky shutting you down is all you get.
[0] https://twitter.com/GovHowardDean/status/1056710782342311938
This is whitewashing what Gab is. Before they purged their twitter history in response to this crisis, Gab's Twitter account was more than happy to tweet and retweet anti-semitic vitriol and conspiracies themselves[1]. While Gab likes to claim they're an impartial social network and defenders of free speech, they are actively courting a specific, often anti-semitic audience on Twitter.
But even as far as civil law goes, the posters themselves probably don't have any obvious liability, and under criminal law it's hard to see how they'd fall under either of the relevant extremely narrow exceptions to the First Amendment (incitement or true threat).
Unless the (former) politicians saying these things can plausibly garner the support of 2/3rds of both houses of congress and 3/4 of the states I don't see why we should pay much attention to their "demands".
Go-Daddy is 100% within their rights to kick Gab off of their service. But silencing certain speech is not, in my opinion, a smart way to prevent atrocities like this in the future.
IMHO, we can at the same time hold that Gab should not be liable for the actions (arguably) resulting from these posts, but that they have a legal responsibility to identify, report, and remove imminent incitements to violence.
For instance: one could argue that profiting from such incitements constitutes support / endorsement of said incitements. This is similar in spirit to the "business activity" approach mentioned in the above Wired article. One could also argue that failing to identify and report such incitements is negligence.
Are these commonplace interpretations of these legal terms? Perhaps not, but there are some signs of a general recognition that perhaps this should change. "Disruption" and "technology" are not valid reasons to shirk civic responsibility; if you cannot provide your service responsibly, perhaps you shouldn't provide it. After all, we demand the same of engineers who build bridges and contractors who repair houses - because there is demonstrable harm to be done by failing to exercise responsibility. What we're rapidly discovering is that demonstrable harm is equally possible in a digital realm; it makes perfect sense for our understanding of legal responsibility to be updated accordingly.
Also IMHO, while it is impossible to "silence" extreme hate speech like this, we should certainly try. The harder it is for neo-Nazis and other militant racists to self-organize, the better. By giving their ilk any kind of easily-accessible platform, we make it that much easier for atrocities like this to be supported, normalized, organized, etc. Sure, we should be very careful as to what we tar with the "militant racist" brush - but there are some very, very, very clearcut examples.
[1] https://www.wired.com/2017/01/the-most-important-law-in-tech...
I do not like to see distasteful ideas put forth where i can see them, but what happens when our opinions on what is distasteful are in opposition?
It is Gabs right to, but not a responsibility to block content they find objectionable on their platform. And the first amendment clearly defines our RIGHT (note:defines, not gives) to say whatever we want, no matter how distasteful some may think it.
Edit for fumble fingers
For consideration: Stormfront exists solely to incite neo-Nazis to violence, and its members have murdered almost 100 people (pre-2014, that number is likely higher now)[1]. I wouldn't be shocked or constitutionally worried by a criminal case against them.
When you consider that Gab is really just Web 2.0 Stormfront with extra dogwhistles ("free speech" instead of "murder the Jews/Muslims"), it's not all that surprising that criminal charges are floated.