They collectively decide that some people shouldn't be allowed to talk on the internet, and then harass them through every means possible until they remove all

They collectively decide that some people shouldn't be allowed to talk on the internet, and then harass them through every means possible until they remove all presence from the internet. That is the goal, and they plan their methods and share doxxing information on the forum, which the forum owner actively encourages. They plan doxxing, they work to get them fired, they attempt murder by swatting, and attempt to push people to suicide (something they have succeeded in on multiple occasions). The goal is to stop their victims from exercising their own right to free speech. If it were not for those actions it would just be seen as yet another forum filled with assholes. But because the forum owner not only condones, but actually encourages those actions then it is morally acceptable as a defense to force it offline. It's a pretty standard moral concept - we allow people to use force, even lethal, when someone has attacked them, here when people are using their right to free speech to actively harm others (again, we're not just talking about people being transphobic on a forum, we're talking about people actively attacking their victims in every way that they can come up with). So I don't have a problem with kiwifarms being "censored" anymore than I have a problem with people losing their freedom of movement when they go to jail. Similarly I don't have a problem with a CEO that supports this behavior, which includes doxxing, being doxxed. I recognize that people have a right to say horrible things about others, and being what I would consider to be horrible human beings would not be a justification for censoring them (though I would also protect a private institution's right to not publish such content, the 1st amendment applies to government restriction, such as governments restricting access to accurate medical information or mandating what doctors can tell patients, as Florida is doing). But again, the free speech argument is unreasonable once the speech turns into targeted harassment and threats (and threatening someone _is_ a crime in the US).