Brian Krebs actually brought this up in his talk at DefCon (on my phone so I don't have a link). Then, the CloudFlare CEO got up to argue his case. While I can

Brian Krebs actually brought this up in his talk at DefCon (on my phone so I don't have a link). Then, the CloudFlare CEO got up to argue his case. While I can't summarize everything he said, he basically brought up that CloudFlare chooses to take a hands off approach to managing their customers. This makes sense, IMO- if they choose to censor one customer without appropriate legal backing, where does it stop? Saying CloudFlare supports this is different than saying CloudFlare simply protects the rights of its customers to publish content freely. In fact, Cloudflare also pays the price for this stance. Many of the fraudsters who either target cloudflare in some way, or aim to undermine it's infrastructure (eg DDoS services) actually use cloudflare, and CloudFlare doesn't shut them down.