There are civil issues. IMO there's no 1st amendment issue. The site is up. I've been using myself as an example only to not involve others who have a different opinion, this has impacted lots of people. I get to post here. I get to associate with you. Tresspass in the digital age, that's creative. IMO, it's a civil issue, though as I noted I do take the "kill the Jews" message addressed to me personally, and if there's a violation it's there. If I wrote a letter to the editor, and he posted that on a sign on my property, I think he'd be in jail, and not for tresspass. If the LA Times or NYT ran a similar forum, and this happened there, things might be different as well.
let us consider FR to be the internet equivalent to a private club.
there is a Proprietor: Jim Robinson
there is a Property Manager: John Robinson
there is Staff: The Almighty Mods
there are Paying Members: those of us who contribute money during FReepathons and/or monthly, as well as have signed up with a distinct User Account
there are Members: those of us who have signed up with a distinct User Account, but do not contribute money
As with a real-world property, the Proprietor sets the rules of the Club. His Manager and Staff administer the rules and maintain the Club property. Paying Members fund the Club. All members make use of Club facilities under the established Club Rules - by which all of us have contractually agreed to abide.
One of those Club Rules is displayed each and every time any member goes through the process of posting a message on a thread:
"Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts."
No member can claim to be ignorant of this part of the Club Rules.
One who violates these rules can be summarily ejected from the website, just as any Club Member can be tossed out of a real-world club for violating that club's terms of use/membership. This person's membership can be summarily revoked. This is a basic right of a Proprietor to defend the value and environment of his property.
If a banned member returns and repeats his offense, he is in the real-world guilty of criminal trespass. The internet scenario is an exact analogue. Trespass laws and penalties should apply.
This is not the end of it: The miscreant is also guilty of defacement of private property (vandalism) - since the grotesque posts remain on pinged recipient's "My Comments" pages, clearly they reside somewhere in the site code in some (at the moment) inextricable form. Removing them will require time and effort = money. These are Real Damages, and inflicting them is actionable.
Moreover, so long as these horrid posts remain ANYWHERE on the site's code, an opponent/detractor of FreeRepublic.com can in all literal fact claim that "those awful people at FR host virulent violence-mongering racist commentary." This renders FreeRepublic DEFAMED. Last I checked, this is also actionable.
So, why bow down in the House of Rimmon and make use of dangerous quasi-thoughtcrime laws, when one can penalize the asshat for what he has DONE?
I have pinged some concerned parties to this message, SJ, as well as one whom I hope has the IT savvy neede to help the Almighty Ones asshat-proof the site, and one whom I hope has the legal savvy to correct me where I err and/or expand along the line I have opened.