There is some good commentary on free speech and protest rights
lately in the gopher-verse [0], [1], [2]. I thought I'd add some
comments on the matter.

While I broadly support the right of a private company to refuse to
host hate speech, I would be careful. In some cases, these companies
are so large, there are few alternatives. At what point does such a
company become an essential public service? Cloudflare handles 10%
of global internet traffic, and they recently terminated the Daily
Stormer's account. The Cloudflare CEO was conflicted about the
decision and raised some good points in a blog post [3].

My first reaction to the white supremacists being chased into an
online corner and forced to use TOR was 'good riddance', but then I
started to think about these groups becoming more public and what
effect that might have - I think the old maxim 'sunlight is a good
disinfectant' can apply here, especially in today's age of Twitter
and rapid-fire news propagation. In my opinion, in the US, overt
racism and hatred for minority groups has been largely underground,
hidden from view for those who don't go looking for it. Now it is
bubbling to the surface of the public and mainstream media's
consciousness.

The overwhelming counter-protest in Boston recently is a good
example of what a little 'sunlight' can accomplish. Online at least,
the Boston white supremacists may have felt part of a very large
movement, but in real life, they found the opposite. I would be
interested to see how many of the Boston racists begin to rethink
their views after being overwhelmingly outnumbered. Cynical me
thinks some of them will feel victimized, and dig in deeper. Still,
the community made a stand in Boston. Free speech works both ways.

I would also be leery of censoring speech based on moral
arguments. The 1st amendment doesn't find utility in protecting
popular, mainstream views. It protects marginalized, distasteful
sometimes abhorrent views. And while it is not absolute, it does
protect even those who advocate violence. The bar is set fairly
high, the speech has to incite imminent violence to be
constitutionally restricted, mere advocacy is not enough [4]. This
seems like a sensible test to me.

[0] gopher://zelibertinegamer.me/0/phlog/2017-08-24_0211.txt
[1] gopher://sdf.org/0/users/cat/phlog/fs20170824.txt
[2] gopher://sdf.org/0/users/tomasino/phlog/20170824-mental-illness-free-speech-unpopular-opinions.txt
[3] https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/
[4] gopher://gopherpedia.com/0/Brandenburg%20v.%20Ohio