Can you expound on what you see as the differences?

Their right: are they prevented from speaking, and using whatever resources they have to write.

Their ability: do they have the tools they would like to have (and that others might own) to communicate effectively.

When governments ban printing presses, which I think actually has happened in the past in Europe, would you consider that preventing people's right to free speech? I would. The difference here is it isn't necessarily governments, but rather corporations that control access to the internet (printing press).

I think in the printing press example, people ended up stealing them to print. I'm not sure you can steal the internet.

> When governments ban printing presses, which I think actually has happened in the past in Europe, would you consider that preventing people's right to free speech?

Yes, because it prevents people from free using their own resources and those gained through mutually consensual trade to spread their ideas.

> The difference here is it isn't necessarily governments, but rather corporations that control access to the internet (printing press).

No, the difference is that nothing is being banned; people are choosing not to let other people use their digital “printing press”, which is no different than the NYT choosing not to print your opinion piece.

No one is preventing the Stormer from self-hosting. And there are a very large set of domain registrars; the fact that a handful have refused their business doesn't mean that they can't get a domain name (which is certainly a convenience that affects reach, but also not a necessity, to publishing via the internet.)

>And there are a very large set of domain registrars

Oh, I totally agree, but the prescient is unsettling to me.