The claim I see over and over is that broad swaths of speech on Parler were illegal. It's not true. Repeating it doesn't make it so. "Insurrection" --- a call to overthrow the government --- is 100% legal speech in the US under the Brandenburg precedent. You don't get to call a company's refusal to go beyond the law in enforcing speech a form of treason.
>The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"
I would say it's pretty clear that the speech we're talking about incited or produced imminent lawlessness. If you were following the various platforms that these groups were organising on it was very clear that they were inciting lawless action on the 6th- which of course was demonstrated on the 6th. It's also important to understand this didn't stop on the 6th, those same people are now talking about the 20th with similar suggestions.
Brandenburg seems to protect basically idle talk - but that's very clearly not what's happening here.
I never said there had to be swaths of illegal content.
In other words you are asserting there was absolutely no illegal content on parler that would require them to moderate their content when asked. If that's the stand you want to take, cool, have a great day, I am not responding to you further. Corporate legal risk assessment is what killed Parler.
Some if it has the risk of ending up judged treasonous as well, and that's all that matters to a risk averse company.