Yes, that set a very frightening precedent. The people replying to you by nitpicking the fact that companies are not legally obligated to behave in a certain ma

Yes, that set a very frightening precedent. The people replying to you by nitpicking the fact that companies are not legally obligated to behave in a certain manner are totally missing the point (not to mention repeating a very tiring trope that occupies 40% of the thread any time free speech comes up). If we start biasing registrars and holding them accountable for the content hosted by all registrants, we get some content put into an "IP only" ghetto, and that fundamentally destroys one of the internet's most important components (even worse than it's already been destroyed by walled gardens like Facebook et al): the convenient ability of anyone to publish anything instantly and accessibly. Do we really want to have to use IP addresses to access anything that is contrary to corporate-approved narratives? Use a rogue "politically incorrect" DNS server? ICANN should really step in here and strongly insist that registrars never do this kind of content policing again. EDIT: This post was not flagged when I started replying, was flagged after. Vouched for content/to counteract what I assumed were reactionary flags, unvouched based on others' assertions that this is derailing the parent thread which is not technically about this issue, which I guess is probably correct. Mods, please consider whether this is really too far off-topic to be allowed.