[mkempe]

Shutting down other people's websites is the complete opposite of freedom of speech. When their free speech is abridged on their own websites, not just shadow-banned in the major social networks, people may end up deciding that their only option left is to resort to force against those they perceive as the abridgers.

This will not end well.

[orf]

They should go find a web host that is supportive of their message. Freedom of speech does not mean every platform has to give you a soap box, quite the opposite.

All in all its got nothing to do with freedom of speech.

[zzzcpan]

It has everything to do with the freedom of speech, it's the opposite of it, it's called self-censorship.

[travmatt]

You’re proposing that my having the freedom to not be forced to spread another persons message is actually me being censored?

That seems like a pretty convoluted way to say “I want to force this company to continue hosting this site despite their objections”.

[orf]

So freedom of speech gives you the right to write a racist letter to any and every newspaper and demand that it is published.

Ok. Good luck with that.

[mkempe]

How about a bakery that refuses to bake or sell a wedding cake to a gay couple -- will you tell the rejected customers to go find a bakery supportive of their message?