Kiwifarms has gone way past free speech and onto active harassment. To fly this one as a free speech issue is disingenuous. To act like censorship is the issue here is pretty ripe.
If you're saying that swatting is free speech, then we've pushed the idea of speech beyond all reasonable boundaries and have decided that speech just means that people are free from consequences of their actions.
I haven't seen any news reports which substantiate these claims that Kiwi Farms is a haven of criminality, just allegations in newspapers which are presented as fact. I've seen no way to verify that any of these claims are in fact true, nobody has.
Now, this isn't bigshell's real address. This is a random place from Google Maps and in fact I picked a gap between existing addresses just in case. But tell me, bigshell, if this had been your real address, would you be okay with it?
I'm not thrilled with it but everyone has the full right to copy and share public records and factual information. I'm not taking the morality of said copying or sharing into question here, I just don't see why you can't reproduce public records of factual information.
If I link a social media profile to my real name, or something that identifies me, that's my responsibility.
And a few of these aren't even heinous! If I happen to be self-taught in the law and I am particularly good at giving wise and helpful legal advice, but I am not actually admitted to the bar, nobody is directly hurt by my advice, but society has decided the potential for harm in this situation is high enough that I still shouldn't be allowed to do that.
It's irresponsible, but it's generally protected.
Luckily, Kiwi Farms has always denied having anything to do with swattings, and there has never been anything to substantiate the claim that people are organising swattings on Kiwi Farms. It is (or was) a public website, so if people are really planning this criminal activity in plain sight it should not really be too difficult to provide evidence for this.
The addresses on Kiwi Farms are already public. They're on the White Pages, public voter registries, WHOIS records, legal filings. Do you think that Kiwi Farms not sharing these addresses would somehow prevent a criminal from getting these addresses?
Edit: I completely misread the comment sorry, I thought your statement "swatting is illegal" was implying that Kiwi Farms had been organising swattings, etc. I'm not going to delete this comment though because I like to think its contents make a good point.
there's specific prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of certain categories
I would of course also love to see this addressed in legislature, but that seems unlikely given the current political climate.
Where/how is vigilantism occurring?
I agree that the participants there are engaging in something closer to vigilantism, although I don’t think they actually believe they have a righteous cause, they’re just unabashedly intolerant and enjoy harassing people which is something else.
There doesn’t need to be a legal case to refuse service to someone using your services for harassment.
If a group of people make a hobby out of walking into gay bars and verbally abusing customers, it’s not vigilantism to refuse service to those groups / kick them out.
One can be banned from an establishment for far less.
Moon has its own server, its own network (AS), a colocation that is willing to host his server as long as he does not violate US law or ignores incoming complaints.
But now it's the peering companies just refusing to route to them, based on some complaints that might not even be fact checked. For many that could be considered essential infrastructure, since you cannot simply start your own peering company.
For reference, his .is domain was taken down since people complained about CSAM hosted on his site. But in fact the links provided were not CSAM. But who is willing to check with that and potentially having to deal with law enforcement as a consequence for this? Likely no one, thus they drop him to stay on the safe and easy side then to protect a costumer that's could be trouble, even if some accusations are wrong.
It's a bit similar as with roads or with the post. Many people dislike Joe Rogan I guess. But imagine now disallowing him to drive on certain roads, UPS/DHL refusing to send packages to his address, AT&T disconnecting his lines because they disagree with him.
Surely at some point you cannot just build everything on your own.
And that's all for services that are (still) considered to be legal, but for which companies just are not willing to take up the heat.