[atoav]

No, if part of the community engages in criminal activity and said criminal activity is discussed and encouraged in said community, then the public has an incentive to do something about it.

Maybe the terrorist also had a membership in the local gym, but as long as they don’t discuss shooting people at that gym the other gym members will not have to fear a shutdown by the public.

The problem is not that a terrorist is member of some group, but that the group is complicit in the actions that follow the communicagions within it, just like I would be complicit as an individual if I convinced my neighbour to hang himself.

If there is a direct legal link would remain to be seen in both cases, but arguing that the culpit’s actions are completely unrelated to the communications about said actions within a group is a bold claim that needs evidence to be backed up (which you certainly seem to have).

Edit: I know that there are parts of the 8chan community which are completely unrelated to that incident and these will see their plattform changed by the fallout of the actions of the few. That is how it is. If you don’t want your plattform to get that kind of press, make sure it is not used by terrorists to plan their actions.