For what has to be the billionth time: when a company stops you from posting hate speech on their platform, your first amendment rights have not been violated.
It takes some serious cojones to declare your support of the principles of free speech upon which western democracy is built, and then when someone points out your hypocrisy in censoring declare "Im not violating the law!!!!"
No. You're not. You're just (legally) attacking the principles upon which your society is built.
For a random small company - sure. But not for a large infrastructural company that can pretty much silence you if a handful of other large infrastructural companies follow.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
I assume you'll be filing suit against Der Spiegel,Le Monde, and The Economist for failing to publish your articles?
Seriously, I would bet that "impart information and ideas through any media" doesn't mean that you have the right to use others' equipment, venue, and name.
Just because you pay for something, doesn't mean I have to continue to sell it to you.
Now - if the Daily Stormer paid for services, and wasn't refunded their money after their access was pulled, that's one thing.
But if the money was returned to them, and they were told "We won't sell you this service any longer, because you have violated our terms of service" - then the company offering the services are free and clear to do that.
If the DS wants to continue broadcasting their speech, they are welcome to set up their peering services, dns providers, and DDOS prevention and CDN services themselves. And, if someone violates their terms of service, they are just as free to stop providing services to them.
But companies aren't required to give someone a bullhorn to amplify their voice.
Well you can't follow just a bit of the UN charter:
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
That is trivially true. The first amendment forbids the government from suppressing free speech, but the moral principle of a liberty to engage in free expression exists prior to the first amendment in the same way as the right to life is prior to Title 18, U.S. Code Chapter 51.
Even as a moral principle, free speech isn't a blank check to express whatever you want without consequences. The founders of free speech principles even acknowledge this with the harm principle, where someone's free speech liberty can be hindered if the expressions cause harm.
I did not claim that free speech should completely unconstrained, and I don't see how such an inference can be drawn from my point above. My point was simply that the scope of the principle that free speech ought to be protected is not bounded by the limits of the first amendment because it is a moral principle that exists prior to codification in law.
You simply stated that free speech as a moral principle wasn't constrained by the law. I was just reminding you that free speech as a moral principle still has constraints, which are relevant to the discussion of expressions that historically harm others (child pornography, Nazism, etc.)
No. You're not. You're just (legally) attacking the principles upon which your society is built.