[lordCarbonFiber]

This is historical revisionism in the extreme. That rationale is younger than a good number of people on this board, not the golden ideal in the minds of the founders. You're literally posting to a forumn where certain speech is moderated; it's because of that moderation that you post here, otherwise it would be a cesspool of off topic memes and spam (a la /r/programming et al). A private company or even a cabal of private companies cannot ban speech. Nothing is stopping anyone from hosting which ever content they'd like. You are not entitled to the walled garden that Google and others insist is "The Internet".

Private businesses and lay people not wanting to do business with you is fundamentally different from official prosecution. I will gladly fight for any group's protection from governmental over reach; I can't even begin to understand the rational behind choosing "private businesses can't have moderation" as the hill you choose to die on.

[xaa]

Hmm, perhaps instead of "rationale", I should have said "philosophy behind" the 1st Amendment. Obviously the 1st Amendment is not directly intended to cover entities other than the government. But almost everything in the Bill of Rights is essentially intended to protect the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority, whose representative is the government. It is not necessary to protect popular views, from either the government or from others.

This philosophy is as old as the university and modern science. It is certainly no younger than the "free speech, but not consequences" argument, which I read as a thinly-veiled way to threaten unpopular views with unspecified "consequences".

> "private businesses can't have moderation"

I wasn't arguing that they can't. Only that it can be unwise and a net negative for our society for them to choose to do so. I would draw a distinction between trolling/spam and someone honestly espousing an unpopular view.

It is true, some kind of filtering is needed, because there's too much information for any individual to absorb. The question is, who (if not me myself) is doing the filtering and what are their incentives? dang's incentives are aligned with mine: good-quality technical discussion, and people aren't blacklisted purely for espousing unpopular views.

The incentives of corporations are not. Google, Facebook, and in this instance, Namecheap, are presumably taking these actions to safeguard their image and maximize profit, not to actually make their users maximally informed. There is a conflict of interest here.

Finally, I think all this becomes much more important when it comes to political speech, because people have a marked tendency to want to shout down, ignore, misrepresent, or otherwise not engage with political views that make them uncomfortable. Look how the media misrepresented the Damore memo. I take no position on the memo itself, but do assert that people are better off knowing actual arguments from all sides, rather than side A blacklisting side B and then giving strawman representations of what B thinks.

[lordCarbonFiber]

See this is where we'll probably never agree. The "all sides" argument, I think, is terribly flawed. There will always "be another side" however there's no guarantee that that side is equally rational or any way valid. That's how you end up with anti-vaxers sitting at the table next to doctors, oil exec sitting next to climate scientists, and intelligent design proponents sitting next to biologists.

It's impossible to rationally debate ideas with no rational foundation; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence not calls to physical violence or pronouncements of superiority. A world in which "whites are the master race" is just an unpopular view that we should welcome as opposed to an unfounded assertion backed by no evidence is not a world in which any "net positive" has been added to society. When the burden is put on rational people to offer counter arguments as opposed to the extremists to offer evidence rationality loses every time; just look to vaccines and climate change.

[xaa]

I wrote a much longer comment, but long story short:

I'm in medical research. Do I think antivaxxers should be able to publish in medical journals? No (unless they performed an experiment that passes peer review, etc).

Do I think they should be able to run their own websites, have nonviolent meetings or rallies without losing their jobs? Yes, I do. Even though antivaxxers are doing far more harm than neo-Nazis are.

Also, "scientific/academic consensus" and "rationality" are not synonyms.

[lordCarbonFiber]

And yet you're moving the goal posts. No one is saying anyone can't excerise their first ammendment rights; just that by the same token no one can strip private citizens and business of their first amendment rights. Nothing can, and hopefully never will, stop these groups from running websites and holding rallies; however we as citizens and business can say "not on our servers" and not without a 15,000 strong counter rally. Free speech is not mono-directional (the exact same way nature can tell antivaxxers to fuck off until they do a peer reviewed experiment or a forum can ban you for posting affiliate links).

[xaa]

> Nothing can, and hopefully never will, stop these groups from running websites

That is literally what OP is about.

[lordCarbonFiber]

No, it's not. There's a world of difference between running your own website, and running a site on hardware owned by someone else, managed by a completely different party.

Now if it were the ISPs handing this ruling we'd be on the same page, but it isn't. There's no freedom of speech argument for "right to demand services without restriction". Same way a restaurant will turn you away if you show up with "no shirt, no shoes". Namecheap is using the freedom of speech of it's leadership in saying "Nazis and other groups that incite violence are not groups we want to host".