[jackgavigan]

CloudFlare's CEO, Matthew Prince, has made his stance on this matter very clear:

CloudFlare is firm in our belief that our role is not that of Internet censor. There are tens of thousands of websites currently using CloudFlare's network. Some of them contain information I find troubling. Such is the nature of a free and open network and, as an organization that aims to make the whole Internet faster and safer, such inherently will be our ongoing struggle. While we will respect the laws of the jurisdictions in which we operate, we do not believe it is our decision to determine what content may and may not be published. That is a slippery slope down which we will not tread.

Source: http://blog.cloudflare.com/thoughts-on-abuse

As a result, both the Israeli Defence Forces and Hamas are CloudFlare customers. Unless one of their customers is doing something that is unambiguously illegal (e.g. hosting child pornography), CloudFlare won't cut them off just because they're doing something that some people regard as "bad".

It's a very principled stance and one that I respect.

[devicenull]

Well, do you believe that suppressing someone else's right to free speech is still free speech?

Information isn't really the question here. These aren't sites telling people how to conduct DDOS attacks, these are sites where you pay them, and they run a DDOS for you. This effectively silences someone until they either give up on their message, or sign up for expensive DDOS mitigation packages (or Cloudflare).

You may consider that to be free speech. I don't.

[jackgavigan]

CloudFlare aren't the Free Speech Police. It's clearly not their job to guarantee everyone's right to free speech. However, it would appear that they have decided that they will not deny their customers their right to free speech unless they're breaking the law. I respect that approach.

You clearly don't and you're entitled to your opinion.