[dragonwriter]

> You aren't allowed to respond by gluing someone's mouth shut.

Refusing to actively collaborate in spreading someone else's viewpoint isn't gluing their mouth shut.

Now, if you want to argue that domain registration should be a public utility and not a private interaction where the service providers freedom of speech and association is protected, that's perhaps a reasonable argument. But that's not the status quo.

[logfromblammo]

I'd rather argue for neither. Name-to-number resolution is too much of a strategic choke point to allow anyone to have too great a degree of control over it.

But in the system we have now, domain registrars and DNS providers should not be engaging in viewpoint-based discrimination against the domain owner, or in content-based discrimination against anything they may have on their servers.

I can certainly condone web hosting service companies embargoing troublesome customers, but anything closer to infrastructure than that should not be cut off for any reasons other than failure to pay the bills.

[Clubber]

I know it's not the status quo, but if we cheer this, we are cheering the death of free and public internet. Careful what you wish for.

[jacquesm]

> If we cheer this, we are cheering the death of free and public internet.

I don't think it is that simple. ISIS does just fine on the web, I'm sure Neo Nazis will do just fine as well. But that's no reason why the IT giants of the planet should aid and abet them.

[trav4225]

But the Internet is neither free nor public... (?)

[smileysteve]

If we cheer this, we cheer that DNS is a flawed system. Which I think we already know from Comcast injecting ads and datacap banners in pages.