> Cloudflare is essentially performing the function of the police permitting the KKK to march, which the US constitution permits

The better analogy is that Cloudflare is performing the function of private security instead of a police force.

The United State government doesn't require any private entities to provide armed security for political groups they dislike (in fact, the US government couldn't make such a mandate as the mandate itself would fall afoul of the first amendment).

If we believe that there must be a steward of this resource that should provide this kind of service in a first amendment protected manner, then we should advocate that the government offer DDoS protection services.

I agree. As our society moves more to Internet-based communication we must consider how to preserve and apply the principles of free speech when so much of it is governed by private entities. Is free speech not a desirable trait? Is it merely something that racists exploit, and thus the move to autocratic private management is a blessing, a relief from the constitutional shackles that would compel, say, a law enforcement officer to beat back a mob intent on torching a KKK newspaper? Is that a better world?

Remember that these same principles apply to progressive views as well... which have not historically been as popular, and greatly benefited from free speech protections. I would say we would not be where we are now as a society without them.

I don't understand your downvotes. I agree with the overall point you are making. Private ownership, for better or worse, is leading to the erosion of free speech itself. Taken to its logical end, a society where everything is conducted through private enterprise is going to turn quiescent or hew to the middle at the very least.

As a brown immigrant currently living/working in the States I'm not a Nazi sympathizer by any stretch but I wanted to post in support of your broader point.

Much appreciated. I'm as Left as they come. It is a bit odd to be arguing basic free speech, Enlightenment principles in this day and age. I think we're all having an emotional moment. But it's good, it's healthy to scrutinize our beliefs and ensure they stand up to challenge. (Which is why freedom of speech is so important.)

What is this "public space" statement based on? Only because I can go there? Like in a shop or restaurant? So if I set up a server as a private person, it's a "public space" too?

Looks like some heavy reality bending for a questionable cause to me.

No, your server, shops and restaurants are private spaces. The Internet, the park and the street are public spaces. The questionable cause you speak of is the right to express views in public spaces.

DDoS is the internet equivalent of a mob censoring public speech. Proxies like cloudflare are the equivalent of the police protecting the right to speak, no matter the view.

Remember that these principles, which date to the Enlightenment, work for all views and have benefited the civil rights, antiwar, suffragist, environment and other movements immeasurably.

You do realize that "the internet" is a giant web of mostly private servers right? And therefor not a public space. It's not a park or a street.

But even if it was. You must get a permit just like in real life. Which a private entity doesn't have to grant you. Because you know... personal freedom.

Streets are a giant network of mostly private destinations. The streets themselves are public, and the public has a right to access. Cloudflare is operating on the streets level, not the destination level.

Cloudflare got taken over by the government? That’s surely a surprise to everyone and big news...

We have regulations about ISP filtering (you know, net neutrality?) but they certainly don’t apply to Cloudflare!

Cloudflare is not bound by regulations, but that's not the issue. DDoS is a relatively new phenomenon and so no regulations exist.

The question is, should the Internet be a free and open public forum or not? Should we permit mobs to knock legal servers off the Internet?

That would seem to run counter to the idea of an open internet embodied in net neutrality, upon which certain laws have been developed and passed over the years. It would be a mistake to merely look at the current laws on the books without grasping the underlying general principles.

What? How can you be so wrong in such few words?

Please don't do this here. Rather, if you have a substantive point, give us the information, so we can all learn. Conversely, if you don't have a substantive point it's best to abstain.

This is blatantly wrong. Streets are a giant network of publically owned land which is why they are public. Seriously. What are you even talking about?

Servers aren't necessarily the most expensive part of Internet - it's the last mile. Last mile isn't privately owned in Europe.

Not to mention access to Internet is considered a basic right in some countries.

So grand parent makes compelling case, just not in US laws.