But free speech for free speech sake itself doesn't work
Perhaps you can define why we should have free speech then? If not you, then who? Who gets to define when we can have free speech and why it's appropriate to have free speech zones?
Free speech has always been limited. The famous 'you can't shout fire in a crowded theater' is a perfect example. When people begin to rant and rave about killing folks, etc, as happens on both the left and right, it's no longer free speech IMHO ... that's what I'm trying to say. Nothing more. In everything in life there are limits ... that's why we have laws and cops ... we as a society define those limits, otherwise you don't have civilization, you have chaos.
The famous 'you can't shout fire in a crowded theater' is a perfect example
It's actually a horrible example, particular when placed next to what you say next:
When people begin to rant and rave about killing folks, etc
Your "perfect example" leads to a real, credible and immediate danger: death by trampling. Saying on an internet forum "I'm going to kill Mr. XYZ" isn't a credible threat, does not present an immediate threat, and is at worst a statement of fact or intent rather than inciting something.
I don't disagree that there are limits. But those limits have already been defined. There's already laws, etc in place. Punishing the owners of Gab and the other users who did nothing illegal, etc. is draconic crap that punishes innocent people.
Agree. I commend the sentiment, I really do. But free speech for free speech sake itself doesn't work, if that makes sense. There also needs to be a certain limited, yet reasonable amount of responsibility by a host entity in what is presented. That's a delicate balancing act, for sure, and so far, I think Phuks meets that goal well.