The issue is more subtle than you make it out to be. Just as they have the right to free speech, others have no obligation to enable speech. They are not being denied free speech. They can still do and say as they please. Others have just decided not to enable it. There is a difference.

And it is sentiments like this that simply confuse the issue. No one, including Rackspace, is denying them their right to free speech. The fact of the matter is that, when you choose to use your right to free speech in a manner that others find to be blatantly offensive; you open yourself up to repercussions from other private individuals and companies.

Do not confuse having a right to express your views in an open manner to mean that you do so without being held accountable for those views. What it means is that others cannot stop you from expressing those views, with rare exceptions. It in no way means that others can choose not to do business with you.

free speech is an illusion that doesn't exist, and shouldn't exist. There are lots of things that you can't say and shouldn't be allowed to say - yelling "fire" in a crowded place, inciting racial hatred, etc etc

When Americans say "free speech" we usually are referencing the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which holds that the federal (and as of Gitlow v. New York, state and local) government cannot make a law prohibiting the free exercise of speech.

1. If you're making reference to the First Amendment, Rackspace cannot offend that. They're a corporation, not a government.

2. Even if you're not, why should Rackspace be forced to host someone's content that violates their AUP (and that they probably find offensive themselves?) If you don't like it, don't purchase their services.