> They were criticising developers who worked on Gab
Sure. But remember, criticizing the developers is also free speech.
> presumably with the aim of removing Gab as a platform.
You're making up their aims, but again, free speech.
You don't have to agree with them, but it's absolutely their free speech right to call the Gab developers all kinds of nasty things. You cannot create a definition of free speech that includes the right of people on Gab to say whatever they want, but doesn't include the right for other's to tell the Gab developers that they've done a bad thing and should feel bad.
Edit: To further bolster my point, I will quote from Ken White about another famous free speech spat a few years ago when a twitter troll lost his job at Business Insider.
> But speech has private social consequences, and it's ridiculous to expect otherwise. Whether sincere or motivated by poseur edginess, controversial words have social consequences. Those social consequences are inseparable from the free speech and free association rights of the people imposing them. It is flatly irrational to suggest that I should be able to act like a dick without being treated like a dick by my fellow citizens.
> Some criticize social consequences as being chilling to free speech. That misappropriates the language of First Amendment scrutiny of government restrictions on speech and seeks to impose it upon private speech. It is true, superficially, that I am chilled from saying bigoted things because people will call me a bigot, or chilled from saying stupid things because people will call me stupid. But how is that definition of chill coherent or principled? How do you apply it? If Pax Dickinson suggests that "feminism in tech" is something to be scorned, to we treat that as something that as first-speaker speech that we ought not chill with criticism, or do we treat it as a second-speaker attempt to chill the speech of the "feminists in tech" with criticism? What rational scheme do you use to determine what speech is "legitimate disagreement," and what speech is abusive and "chilling"?
Sure. But remember, criticizing the developers is also free speech.
> presumably with the aim of removing Gab as a platform.
You're making up their aims, but again, free speech.
You don't have to agree with them, but it's absolutely their free speech right to call the Gab developers all kinds of nasty things. You cannot create a definition of free speech that includes the right of people on Gab to say whatever they want, but doesn't include the right for other's to tell the Gab developers that they've done a bad thing and should feel bad.
Edit: To further bolster my point, I will quote from Ken White about another famous free speech spat a few years ago when a twitter troll lost his job at Business Insider.
> But speech has private social consequences, and it's ridiculous to expect otherwise. Whether sincere or motivated by poseur edginess, controversial words have social consequences. Those social consequences are inseparable from the free speech and free association rights of the people imposing them. It is flatly irrational to suggest that I should be able to act like a dick without being treated like a dick by my fellow citizens.
> Some criticize social consequences as being chilling to free speech. That misappropriates the language of First Amendment scrutiny of government restrictions on speech and seeks to impose it upon private speech. It is true, superficially, that I am chilled from saying bigoted things because people will call me a bigot, or chilled from saying stupid things because people will call me stupid. But how is that definition of chill coherent or principled? How do you apply it? If Pax Dickinson suggests that "feminism in tech" is something to be scorned, to we treat that as something that as first-speaker speech that we ought not chill with criticism, or do we treat it as a second-speaker attempt to chill the speech of the "feminists in tech" with criticism? What rational scheme do you use to determine what speech is "legitimate disagreement," and what speech is abusive and "chilling"?