We don't censor the opinion that people should be able to have sex with children.
There is a very clear line and it's called the First Amendment.
We censor child porn because it is a crime that involves a victim.
The Daily Stormer was all talk.
Once you start talking about censoring people who might cause people to commit crimes, you've crossed a philosophical boundary into policing thought crimes.
There are a few other examples of people getting in varying amounts of trouble, but that one stands out.
if i said someone was secretly a nazi, i would definitely be causing them harm.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/lawsuit-against-...
Talk is not all safe nor is it all protected, even under the First Amendment in the U.S. You can't slander people; you can't say fraudulent things (this elixir cures cancer!); you can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater; you can't assist or encourage people, though talk, in the commission of a crime.
Talk moves armies and nations, to good and evil, and in fact is far more effective at it than anything else. Talk encouraging ethnic hate has a very well-established track record of causing great harm to people's lives and liberties in large numbers. Arguably, nothing has done more harm in human history than ethnic hatred. To try to minimize it as "all talk" is dangerously misleading.
(OTOH, I do believe we should be very careful with limiting speech, and that monopolies and oligopolies are the wrong people to do it.)
No. You're not. You're just (legally) attacking the principles upon which your society is built.
Western democracies like Germany, the Netherlands, or Canada (to name a non-european democracy) might disagree there.
The US government, by the first amendment, can't legally censor your speech.
That doesn't mean they have to give you a bullhorn, a soapbox, and a corner to stand on, though.
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
Article 19
I assume you'll be filing suit against Der Spiegel, Le Monde, and The Economist for failing to publish your articles?
Seriously, I would bet that "impart information and ideas through any media" doesn't mean that you have the right to use others' equipment, venue, and name.
Now - if the Daily Stormer paid for services, and wasn't refunded their money after their access was pulled, that's one thing.
But if the money was returned to them, and they were told "We won't sell you this service any longer, because you have violated our terms of service" - then the company offering the services are free and clear to do that.
If the DS wants to continue broadcasting their speech, they are welcome to set up their peering services, dns providers, and DDOS prevention and CDN services themselves. And, if someone violates their terms of service, they are just as free to stop providing services to them.
But companies aren't required to give someone a bullhorn to amplify their voice.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.