I hope he wins the trial for that reason alone. FBI's thinking is very dangerous here. Basically what they're saying is that if they can't monitor/censor freely the content they want then you're a "facilitator" for whatever crime is happening on the network.
If you apply this logic to something else, you'll see how little sense it makes. "If you don't give us your encryption keys, or use PFS, you're a facilitator of terrorism". "If you sell guns, you're a facilitator of gun crime."
If you're an ISP that doesn't block sites that we say are piracy sites, you're a facilitator of piracy (an argument that is already used, and was also used in ACTA, too).
And I could go on and on about this. People should be calling them out on their BS argument. They're just using these arguments to crack down on anything that has remained remotely private, so they can have the total surveillance state they've always dreamed about.