Sorry to be pedantic, but people have weird ideas about what the 1st Amendment actually means. "Congress shall make no law" does not mean "Rackspace shall make no rule".

How far can you bend your constitution before it breaks?

I can think of three ways to provide for that:

1. Public servers, possibly sponsored by the govt

2. Regulation of Internet access run by private companies

3. Waiting for private competition to create such a space

The first one worked well in the early days of the Internet. There were lots of rules against commercial use of publicly-funded computers but little content regulation. Despite what some may think about the govt, it has lost most times it has attempted to limit free speech.

Regulation sort of works for railroads and telecom lines. Bell gets a monopoly on wiring but they have to provide access to disabled people, can't do discriminatory pricing, etc.

The last one is least likely to succeed. I don't know of any private US company that advertises themselves as "no takedown unless required by court order". It seems there is little profit advantage in marginalized speech compared to the cost of defending against attacks on it.

While it's good to see Ipredator and BayImg providing services with this kind of guarantee, the fact that such an effort only seems possible in Sweden should give us pause.

Perhaps if we view it from the perspective of the black letter of the law, that is the constitution, the highest law of that country, it might not be an infringement. However freedom of speech goes beyond the constitution, it is a principle ingrained in our society and culture.

To address your differences between private and public, a newspaper of course has no obligation to give him space in their platform, nor the television, but the internet is different. The former two are selective, the internet is free for all. If private bodies are able to go around policing the kind of content that is to be found on the net, the difference between them and the government is a mere technicality.

The law of the land very explicitly says "Congress shall make no law restricting..." not "Rackspace shall shut down no website".

The spirit of the law, in the sense of what writers of the constitution intended is a lot more limited: not only did they specifically not want it applying to private property, they didn't even mean to apply it to states; several states had established churches. Fourteenth amendment incorporation is why is why the first amendment applies to state and local governments, as well as federal government. Some amendments e.g., second (The Right to Bear Arms) weren't incorporated until recently.

> but you are left with a society that is devoid of any free speech

You have your property, on which you can practice free speech. Find another managed host, colocate at a datacenter yourself or get a DSL line with a static IP. There's also public property: universities, libraries, public squares.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Ro...

No. This is a free speech issue. Those who feel offended are also free to burn bibles and desecrate whatever they feel proper.

As much as we disagree with the book burning festival (it is a stupid thing to do and there are much more articulate ways to express disagreement with Islam), I find freedom of speech is a much more important issue than the sensitivities of religious groups.

I was actually a part of making this happen for someone who called in -- I had a high voice at the time, got called "ma'am" a lot. A male customer was coming on to me, wanted to send me flowers. As I was trying to assist them, I noticed the call records - some employee codes I recognized as males had notes like "lost call" and "customer hung up"; females had notes like "customer made inappropriate comments". Long story short, a supervisor listened in, and after they made sexual advances and used profanity, got their telephone service cut off (and I don't just mean long distance, I mean local service - the LECs in those days still had a good relationship with AT&T)...

So where's the right of free speech there?

Still not quite the same issue, because that involved federal law, whereas this is regarding Rackspace contracts... But it's an example of something trumping free speech.

The shorter and more classic example is the [lack of] right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre [when there is no fire].

This is nothing like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. It's not also profanity or improper conduct in a one-to-one conversation.

Except, possibly, finding an ISP whose TOS are more tolerant of customer content. I'm sure they exist, I just wouldn't know where to find them.

Now I'll apply your logic.

"The Constitution doesn't give you the right to use that mall space in the first place. The mall owns it, and has the understandable perception that it's their choice how it gets used, not yours."

Hopefully you can see that something has gone wrong, regardless of legal compliance. Freedom is neither bestowed by a piece of paper nor by men with guns or gavels. It is a cultural trait manifest in our actions. We're not free unless we live like free people.

Would you call yourself a musician if you had no instrument to play? How can you claim to have free speech, if your medium of communication is removed whenever you try to say something unpopular?

Note that discrimination because of "race, color, religion, national origin, sex, handicap or familial status" in the sale or rental of real estate is unlawful under the FHA only in the housing market.

What's your point? The issue here isn't whether I think people should or shouldn't be allowed to burn the Koran; it's "what does the 1st Amendment mean?"

You absolutely have the right to free speech in the US. But any owner of private property can pretty much ban you from that property, for example (there are certainly some protected exceptions, but in general 'the law' is on their side).

Similarly, Rackspace has the right to stop servicing their customer if they feel the customer has violated the contract. Now, whether or not a court has to step in to determine the validity of the contract, etc, is a completely separate issue.

But this most certainly all has absolutely nothing to do with constitutionally protected speech.

You have the right to free speech, but you're probably going to be quickly ordered to leave a church if you begin swearing loudly.

You have the right to bear arms, but buildings are free to forbid you bring in weapons of any sort.

They are all just cases of someone who is providing a service being able to give stipulations over what can occur there. A church won't let you swear, some places don't want you to concealed carry, and a hosting provider doesn't want you to organize hatred.

In effect, you have your free speech curtailed because you have to express it using someone else's property. Companies like Rackspace may prevent your free speech from reaching anyone for any reason that fits the contract you signed.

It's important