My take on the debate over internet censorship is that the "free speech" contingent badly wants to deal with it using elegant, consistent, universal principles

My take on the debate over internet censorship is that the "free speech" contingent badly wants to deal with it using elegant, consistent, universal principles. While a solution that meets those criteria should always be the goal, we must recognize when it isn't possible. If we don't, we wind up with something that satisfies our ideology without actually being a good solution. Such issues often result in new law. If any phenomenon creates a certain level of harm, a society is liable to alter its laws to deal with it, breaking with convention if necessary. Regarding your phone company example, what that means is that the answer to your question might depend on the extent to which the criminal activity is harming society. Regarding Facebook, I'm open to betraying my normal principles, because the amount of injury Facebook does to the world justifies exceptional remedies.