"Yes Mr. Bar Owner, a few of your patrons incited a racist mob a few weeks back. We'll need the names and addresses of all the people who visited this place for the last year please."
Pretend they have first amendment rights to tell you to your face and through their actions that your opinion is garbage and not something they respect.
*adding: I find it amazing some people are up in arms about people getting fired for their opinions, maybe you should direct your anger to "Right to Work" laws anti-union folks have pushed down our throats everywhere?
There used to be a due process before someone was fired, I wonder where that went and who took it away?
You can pretend all you want about something that didn't happen. That is a counterfactual: a conditional statement the first clause of which expresses something contrary to fact, as “If I had known.”.
There have been no judicial orders requiring the Daily Stormer to turn over any records relating to Charlottesville. Instead, quite the apposite, various private companies have decided that having anything to do with the Daily Stormer was beyond the pale.
We have a shared fact set called reality. Argue that.
Wouldn't it be amazing if the providers released the IP addresses of the the Daily Stormer users, just because they can. That would be interesting, and totally within their power.
Was the Daily Stormer's visitor logs up for grabs at any point? Did GoDaddy/Google hand over data to the government as a matter of public record? No.
What about visitor data for any alt-right or white supremacist sites being requested by the government? Maybe in association with a possible hate crime investigation, but nothing I've heard about recently.
What kind of muddying logic are you trying to communicate here, or is this just trolling?
Nope. Violent islamic extremists are just as odious as violent facist extremists, yet the consensus here was to support Apple's position on the security of private communications.
Why? Bulk data about visitors do the Daily Stormer wouldn't be very interesting or useful. I'd show up in such a list, for example. If it turns out that the site was used to plan the violence that occurred then more specific warrants for the planners might be useful, but not a blanket "give us everything" one.
If you have individual user accounts that you want more info on, and have evidence that they used the forum to plan a serious crime, sure that passes muster.
Giving the Committee for Public Safety the names and addresses of every single user that registered or posted there, hell no.
It's a website created for the sole purpose of promoting terrorist acts at a certain time and place. I think that's enough to say that every individual user account is suspect. I consistently reject government overreach but this isn't an example of that.
I think the point was that is a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? Do we trust the restrictions we have placed on our government to not violate our rights?