I only watched Alex one time and that was during the campaign of the last election when he sold people on the idea that Assange was going to do a big announcement on Hillary via video link at some special event. Turns out it was just a twentieth anniversary special....that was a huge waste of two hours. I think you are conflating two very different issues into one. In these two examples, whether right or wrong, one is more main stream and the other attracts the nutters of the world. When one attracts more nuts then the other the chances increase that one of them are more than likely already living on the edge. What you don't understand is that people get sued all the time even though they are not directly involved in the harm of another but gave access or a platform for them to do so. A really good current example would be the Mandalay Bay Casino shooting....they are being sued but they were not directly involved. There was no way they could tell someone was about to go off but people want to hold them responsible. With people moving luggage in and out all day long how could they have possibly known? I haven't look to see if there's any Supreme Court rulings on the subject but it would seem to me that if employers could be held responsible for allowing harassment, intimidation or a threatening work environment so could a internet provider.