Comment by camus2
9 years ago
> Free speech does not mean a company has to take part in spreading it :).
Yes and no, that's why phone companies or internet providers are regulated in a certain fashion, so they can't deny you certain basic services.
Imagine you are a controversial figure and all phone companies conspire to deny you a phone number just because they don't like what you say. Or all postal services refuse to deliver your mails. So some line of businesses are deemed of public utility despite being private and have to follow certain regulations.
That would indeed be a problem.
But that's not what's happened here. CloudFlare (or any CDN, for that matter) does not provide access. CF terminating their account did not remove their ability to speak. They have many other options.
Regulations around ISPs and telecom providers exist specifically because there are often no other options.
You're forgetting the message I'm answering to
> Free speech does not mean a company has to take part in spreading it :).
IS false in practice. Some private companies cannot suppress speech.
Perhaps I'm missing that, but that portion of your post isn't really correct either. Most companies can suppress speech. Some -- which are few, in relative terms -- are regulated and barred from doing so, sure. So you may be "technically correct", but that's not particularly useful here. Most companies (including CF) can, and IMO should, suppress speech that they find reprehensible. It's a difficult line to walk, but ignoring the problem is cowardly, and tacitly condones bad behavior.