[cjhopman]

Usually when people make these statements, they don't actually mean it.

If Gab were strictly a child porn site, would it be okay if Joyent stopped serving them? If yes, then your absolutist statement isn't actually what you mean and it's just a question of where to draw the line. If not (which has yet to have been the case when someone initially stated such a trivial statement), then I disagree with you and maybe there's some interesting discussion to be had.

[drivingmenuts]

I would argue that restrictions on child pornography are more about consent and intent and the idea that anyone under the age of majority is not considered capable of giving consent to a sexual act.

[lgleason]

Making racist statements is not against the law in the US. Child porn is. As such they would have a legal obligation to cut them off if they were hosting child porn.

[cjhopman]

Oh please. Smoking marijuana is illegal in every part of the US but every so-called "defender of free speech" that I've met would be totally up in arms about a host shutting down a site for being involved in that.