[someone454]

Gab can reasonably claim safe-harbor over this. If they are not censoring user’s posts, then they shouldn’t be held liable.

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.

[candu]

As summarized in [1], whether or not they should be held liable is still up for discussion. How the law works and how it should work are two different things, the latter being subject to continuous debate.

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...

[someone454]

Conflating bridge building with public speech is not a good analogy: one is physics, the other chaos.

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

[Cthulhu_]

Safe harbor only goes so far; free speech is a thing, yes, but inciting hate and violence is iirc still illegal (IANAL), and if they had gotten reports from it or they could reasonably know about that behaviour on their platform, they can be held liable.