The domain registrar aspect of it is what is concerning about this, I think. Sites are thrown off hosts all the time, but there's generally someone out there wi

The domain registrar aspect of it is what is concerning about this, I think. Sites are thrown off hosts all the time, but there's generally someone out there willing to do hosting. Domain registrars are a different story, I think. Not only have they until recently not been political territory (opening up new territory for the Culture Wars is always a concerning thing IMHO), but the costs to starting up one's own domain registrar are quite high. I am legitimately curious if the choices of registrars here are because the owner of the Stormer knows he'll get publicity by being thrown off them, or because there actually aren't options for them. A lot of the "First Amendment" vs "private companies aren't obligated to provide service" arguments could be sidestepped by the acknowledgment that we do have a history of certain companies becoming public utilities. Would it be acceptable (or even legal) for a phone company to deny phone service to Nazis? Could an electric company turn off power to the homes of KKK members because of their membership? Does the water company have a right to cut off the tap to Richard Spencer's house/offices because they don't want to quench hate's thirst? Maybe such things should or shouldn't apply to the world of the Internet, but I do wish that a lot of the arguments didn't assume that we live in some sort of anarcho-capitalist society of purely voluntary contracts.