This one is a slippery slope and I don't know which side I fall on. On one hand, this badly restricts free speech. On the other hand, sometimes the act of simpl

This one is a slippery slope and I don't know which side I fall on. On one hand, this badly restricts free speech. On the other hand, sometimes the act of simply hosting content can create unintended victims. I was in a similar situation when I published a magazine. We had a fellow come in and offer us big bucks for a full page ad. Unfortunately, the full page ad had some nazi imagery. My partner and I were personally offended by the imagery, but we knew we couldn't only dress ourselves in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it was convenient for us, or we would lose credibility. In the end, we chose not to take the (business changing) sum of money because we knew that we couldn't possibly survive the backlash we would face from publishing it. It sucked because we were in publishing and no publisher wants to say no to any ad revenue because how do you ever offer any sort of editorial/sales separation again? The sad thing is that, as individuals we agreed that we couldn't turn down the ad without losing credibility. But, we had a fiduciary duty to protect our corporation from a massive backlash, including the real possibility of vandalism (cyber or otherwise) or a massive exodus of paying clients. If we were regulated as a utility, we wouldn't have had to make the decision. But, we also wouldn't have been able to publish 95% of the stuff we published and never would have reached a scale where we had to make those kinds of decisions.