After the ruling was spoken, the provider hosting the NF website closed it. My reasons for mirroring the site are manifold. First of all, the NF site is speech. There is a distinct difference between words and deeds, and that distinction should be respected, not blurred. The NF maintainers took great care to stay within the limits of the law and to not call for violence against abortion doctors.
Interpretation is always in the mind of the reader.
And it's not the eye of the beholder that should be judged. That will increase their contempt for the law rather than enhance it. Secondly, I strongly believe that PP made an error in judgment when they demanded to ban the NF pages. Taking the NF debate to a legal level, is wrong. PP ends up curtailing not only the NF people's but also their own rights and means of opposition.