[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".

[xaa]

Seems like a distinction without a difference. Even if you run a website on your own server, you are still using the ISP's hardware, so they could make the exact same argument. And hosting services are so popular exactly because ISPs have discouraged self-hosting.

Right for service totally without restrictions, no, but "viewpoint-based discrimination" or other types of discrimination are a separate legal category for a reason. "Shirts and shoes required" is different from "whites only" (or, for that matter, "liberals only") on a restaurant door. We allow the former but not the latter, and I think that's reasonable.