The dillema I see with this argument in regards to the Internet is that it's exceedingly cost-prohibitive to publish content on the internet without the discretion of an entity like GoDaddy. What's more, even if you have the monetary means to buy an ASN and IPv4 space (which has a market value of about $4,000 for the smallest block you can announce), nobody is legally obligated to provide transit to you (which itself typically costs somewhere in the ballpark of $300/month).

I don't believe resilience to censorship on the internet should be a right reserved for the wealthy (or even reserved for networking experts who could build their own AS), but I have yet to reconcile that with the right that private service providers have to turn down customers (and it goes without saying that this particular website will not be missed). I wonder if a non-profit hosting provider that was bound by its constitution to host any legal content for anyone that could pay could be successful.

> without the discretion of an entity like GoDaddy

There are lots of other domain registers, some in specific that specialize in free speech rights.

> What's more, even if you have the monetary means to buy an ASN and IPv4 space (which has a market value of about $4,000 for the smallest block you can announce)

Realistically someone could publish to IPFS and do CNAME redirects without a server.

> I wonder if a non-profit hosting provider that was bound by its constitution to host any legal content for anyone that could pay could be successful.

Reminds me of riseup, but that has a littered history as well.

Also there is Namecoin and .bit addresses. Not saying they work flawlessly, but the concept does solve this problem.

Still we are talking about the underlining infrastructure here. While not versed in all the details of ICANN's policies I am actual surprised there no policy stopping a registrar from doing this.

I can understand hosting, but I think DNS records should held to higher standards. People don't like governments messing with the DNS system why should we give a private company a pass?

GoDaddy has no obligation to protect free speech, only the (US) government does (supposedly). I see no problem with a private company selecting who can/cannot use their service. If the US government had ordered GoDaddy to remove the site, then that would be another thing entirely...

For those that support net neutrality though, the whole point is to keep private companies from being able to control which sites have access to the internet. Shouldn't it apply as much to DNS companies as it does to ISPs?