well sure, but doesn't freedom also mean you're allowed to select whether or not you want to host their websites?

If you hold to the belief that internet infrastructure companies should be free to censor anything and everything they want to, there is no such thing as free speech on the internet.

That future is not one I personally subscribe to; I believe in the basic human right to express one self, and as ubiquitous as the internet is as a means of communication, that means people must be free to express themselves on the internet.

If that expression of freedom happens to be not wanting to let certain others express their freedom via your infrastructure then there's a problem. Because there's 2 parties, each having the freedom to express themselves. By your saying A should let B express themselves, but that takes away freedom from A. Likewise I'm advocating that A should have the freedom to not let B express themselves even though, yes, that takes away freedom from B. So this is a tough one, because none of both solutions lets each party have full freedom. In such cases you need to look further. What I see here, is that B spreads hatred and as such, in my opinion, does way more damage to certain groups and humankind in general if you will than the damage done by A. So, since there must be a choice, I'd rather have some freedom taken away from B here.

  Heather Heyer: Woman Killed in Road Rage Incident was a Fat, Childless 32-Year-Old Slut