This isn't a hindrance to free speech, neither legally or practically. That companies decide to exercise their free speech when a site either gets loud enough o

This isn't a hindrance to free speech, neither legally or practically. That companies decide to exercise their free speech when a site either gets loud enough or vile enough is likely about practicality. About the link you posted in another comment pointing out that Cloudflare (and others) hosted ISIS material: 1) At the point they start removing those, they delve into a cat&mouse game that is both financially costly, as well as establishing a precedent in behaviour. It can be argued that that was reached now in regards to dailystormer, but not when considering the other point. 2) ISIS isn't being normalized within the states, and no one would ever believe that Cloudflare (or anyone else) supported the contents on those sites. Dailystormer both explicitly claimed that Cloudflare supported them, while the "alt-right" is being normalized by the POTUS. They exercised their right because they wanted (or rather their hand was forced) to make it explicit that their speech didn't mirror the site's. There are two sides to every coin, and both sides are free speech. I'll also add a link apropos of the topic, by the same author: "Speech Is Tyranny!" https://www.popehat.com/2009/07/01/speech-is-tyranny/ https://www.popehat.com/2009/07/01/speech-is-tyranny/