[liminvorous]

I don't think the internet can funciton as a public platform, which it both is and should continue to be, without allowing infrastucture providers to provide services without being selective in who they provide them to.

Also the details of America's legal implementation of the principle of free speach don't resolve the moral debate over what constitutes censorship, especially in regards to a global platform like the internet.

[devman0]

As long as actual ISPs remain neutral the Internet is an open platform, if you have a controversial position you may just have to do your own hosting as you are not entitled to demand others do so for you.

[josephcsible]

> As long as actual ISPs remain neutral

They already aren't neutral. For example, if you mirror or seed a Kali ISO, you're in violation of Comcast's TOS (even if you have business-class service), which says you may not "distribute tools or devices designed or used for compromising security or whose use is otherwise unauthorized, such as password guessing programs, decoders, password gatherers, keystroke loggers, analyzers, cracking tools, packet sniffers, encryption circumvention devices, or Trojan Horse programs."

[simiones]

> you are not entitled to demand others do so for you

I agree that no one is entitled to this, but why do you feel entitled to demand others refuse service in this way?

[madeofpalk]

I can 'demand' whatever I want. Doesn't mean anyone has to actually follow that.