Mainstream social media companies are impinging upon the First Amendment rights of United States citizens by using a variety of techniques and tactics under the guise of enforcing their "terms of service", "terms and conditions", etc. and curtailing so-called "hate speech".  The very concept of "hate speech" was rejected by the US Supreme Court in Matal v. Tam (15-1293) wherein Justice Alito wrote:

"[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

Further, Justice Kennedy also wrote:

"A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society."

For an organization to institute its own values, principles, guidelines, and practices is within the purview of the organization.  An organization may operate as it wishes within the constraints of the law.  However, as has been clearly demonstrated with social media outlets such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, et al. the voices of those in the minority are being silienced simply because these voices are unpopular and contrary to vox populi and/or the opinions and views of the service provider(s).

The simple solution to that problem is clearly for an organization to establish its own platform which allows 100% access to First Amendment protection save for a very strict and narrow set of exceptions; which are in accordance with existing exceptions as determined by SCOTUS.  While there have been several such alternative platforms established, one of the most popular and emerging solutions has been Gab.com.

Gab.com has made it clear that their vision and mission is for there to be NO oversight or censorship on the platform from a centralized power.  Instead, each person who joins Gab.com does so with the full understanding that "anything goes" except for a few exceptions.  Each individual is expected to assume the responsibility and accountability for muting the posts of other users that they do not want to read, reporting anything that is illegal or a clear and present danger, and owning the posts that they themselves make on the platform.  Further, Gab.com is an opt-in platform; meaning that people join because they want to, stay because they want to, and leave if they want to.  To date, the solution has been a refreshing haven for those who fear persecution and who have been exiled from other social media outlets due to religious or political beliefs; that is, people who gravitate to Gab.com are those whom the other social media outlets have disenfranchised by trampling on their First Amendment rights (speech, association, etc.)

The crux of the issue as of late has taken the form of multiple service organizations  working in collusion to deny access to equal protection under the First Amendment for citizens who hold these opinions and views contrary to those of their organizations and others.  For instance, payment processors have ceased doing business with Gab.com leaving them with no options for accepting payment for membership, sponsorship, etc.  Internet hosting providers have likewise ceased doing business with Gab.com by giving them notice to move their web content off of the hosting provider's servers.  The net effect is there are few hosting providers remaining who will allow Gab.com to run their website on their servers.

Overall, this impacts not only the few hyper-radical and harmful elements that may be members of Gab.com, but also the majority who are much more temperate and are simply seeking a forum in which to share their honest, uncensored, real ideas, opinions, and thoughts with other like-minded individuals.

The latest in the attacks on Gab.com has come from the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro.  Shapiro’s office has subpoenaed the servers of Gab.com, which poses a threat to the continued operation of the site and consequently, no safe harbor for Gab.com members to enjoy protection under the First Amendment.

We are asking for help in rectifying this situation.  Gab.com MUST be safeguarded from deplatforming based on the grounds of “hate speech”, which the SCOTUS itself has clearly struck down as non-existent.  We who have signed this petition are expressing our support to the staff and leadership of Gab.com and humbly ask for your intervention as our elected officials and representatives to ensure that the rights of your constituents- the rights of American people- are not abridged by private industry.

Respectfully yours-

Daniel James Gullo

Author