I don’t think gab or sites like it should be taken down. If we ban one part of free speech because it is offensive, more and more speech will be banned on this basis. Now the member who posted their violent intents on Gab - and horrifyingly followed through - should absolutely be banned. On basis that what they said was directly inciting or theatening violence. Gab did voluntarily turn over all info they had on this member to the FBI. Gab did the right thing here.

Similar violence threatening and inciting posts have been posted on Facebook, Twitter etc. with those members ultimately being banned and their postings becomeing part of the evidence against them. A whole platform such as Gab shouldn’t be shut down because one or many members crossed the line from free speech (even if hateful) to outright inciting violence - unless it is clear that the platform is not willing to properly intervene. At this point there is proof that Gab is willing to properly intervene. Though they may need to step up their monitoring so it can be handled more quickly.

Hate speech is protected. Inciting violence is not protected. If members are advocating for violent action, then the site owners have to make a decision. Do they wait and see what happens? Do they delete the content? Do they remove the members? Do they take some other action?

Agnostic.com does not promote hatred & persecution of people who hold different beliefs! Not at all!

The difference is this. One is real and the other is not. Promoting anarchy is real and should be squelched . Religion is not real , rather a pacifier for those that need it. No problem with that but just keep them away from a society that opts to move forward with free thought.

" How is promoting "Jews are the root of all evil!" different from promoting that "Religion is the root of all evil!"? "

one group in your example has never tried going around and killing the other group..

I think the difference comes from sites like gab where users advocate violence or the loss of freedoms of others where as sites like this don't seem to promote it...

It's like is it freedom of speech if you censor fanatical views or is promoting it by shutting out those whose would be harmed by such fanaticism? Id go with the latter.

Gab was not shut down because it had anti-Semitic views. It was shut down because it allowed content that promoted violence for months.

Gab posted a screenshot of the email on Twitter. This is a portion of it:

"In response to recent complaints we received, GoDaddy discovered numerous instances of content on your site that both promotes and encourages violence against people. Further, this content has remained on your site for months despite your own policies and terms of service."

The idea that Gab is being unfairly censored is offensive. It is offensive to compare anti-theism, a viewpoint with no political and cultural power with anti-Semitism which has been included in Christian political policies for at least two thousand years.

I am tired of people characterizing anti-theism as a form of prejudice instead of a legitimate viewpoint. Being opposed to religion and the idea of god is not the same as discriminating against religious people and being opposed to their human rights.

It should always be the last resort to stop people voicing whatever they wish, however evil it may be. Because if it is hateful, then let it be seen in the clear light of day, and let it be exposed to reasoned counter argument, you will not always win but you will some of the time, while forcing it underground and other unfair ways of winning the argument only loose you the moral high-ground. And those who can win the argument fairly will always keep talking, those who know they will loose the argument, especially unfairly, reach for weapons.

Didn't the Constitution say something about all men being created equal and something about freedom of religion?