No, that's not the conclusion. The conclusion is that the providers are responsible for it and are definitely enabling it, but sometimes that's better than the alternative. Not everything's black and white, unfortunately.
I'm not entirely certain that unrestricted use of a popular destination is the same thing as unrestricted use of a transport, though, to try and figure out a place where the line should be put. If you have an audience and allow people to reach that audience with dangerous and harmful ideas, that's likely worse than giving them the transport to build their own audience.
Holding providers of "audience" infrastructure accountable means that the only unorthodox groups that can communicate as effectively as the orthodoxy are groups with members that can provide "audience" infrastructure. Now the unorthodox suffer a disadvantage. The purpose of this system is to prevent dangerous and harmful ideas from being spread. This is still censorship.
Requiring all ISPs (or forums or whatever) to accept and retransmit the KKK's propaganda is just as much a limit on freedom as banning the stuff.
Alternatively, when an American cable news channel bleeps profanity or blurs nudity, isn't that a form of censorship?
I'm really confused with where the "censorship is only something a government can do" idea came from.
Some sort of conflation between the ideas of "censorship" and "violation of first amendment rights" I suppose.
But if every individual ISP refuses to host the KKK because they'd just rather not do business with bigots, then that's not censorship. It's just freedom of association.
If the 8chan guy tomorrow decided to shut down and nobody else wanted to host the pedophiles, that isn't censorship. They can buy a piece of land and make a pedophile clubhouse. They can buy a printer, make pedophilia leaflets, and distribute them in the town square. But if nobody wants to help them do that, it isn't censorship, because nobody is exercising power over the pedophiles, just over themselves.
No, that is censorship.
transitive verb : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring
Freedom of speech means that you can put up your own lawn signs in your lawn. It doesn't mean that you get to put your lawn signs in other people's yards. It certainly doesn't mean that they are obligated to print and put up your signs in their yard.
People don't have an obligation to uncritically pass on any and all messages. True.
That a publisher only publishes certain books is not censorship of all the other books. True.
That you promote your own views without simultaneously mentioning all other views is not censorship. True.
Freedom of speech means that you can put up your own lawn signs in your lawn. It doesn't mean that you get to put your lawn signs in other people's yards. It certainly doesn't mean that they are obligated to print and put up your signs in their yard. True.
These are all true, but irrelevant. Refusing to help spread a message is different than trying to stop other people help spread a message. I've been repeating this for a while now. If you're still confused, try rereading our discussion until you see the difference.
If my neighbor puts up your signs, I am allowed to express my opinions to him. If he decides to take down the signs, that is still not censorship. I'm even allowed to decide to not talk to him if he leaves them up. Exercising my right to freedom of speech and freedom of association is not censorship. It can't be, because otherwise the right to free speech ends up being self-contradictory.
Your analogy is irrelevant. Your example neighbor is only putting up signs for one person, and you don't explain why he takes down the signs.
Censorship is selective removal of unwanted ideas to prevent those ideas from spreading. Removing all ideas for some other reason is not censorship.
Oh my god, shut up about free speech. It's his privately owned website and he can do whatever he wants with it.
How are these distinct from imageboards, forums or reddit? This is a very slippery slope which implies censorship from the very beginning. Are you prepared to follow your reasoning all the way to its conclusion and stop people from having any platform for speaking their mind? Once you go there, you no longer have freedom of speech, which I agree with Hitchens et al. has to be protected even when it is uncomfortable.
I agree that there is a very tricky ethical case when it comes to harrassment or terrorism, but I have no good ideas on how to resolve it. We should err on the side of not censoring stuff we don't like.