If a message and its opposing message has equal access to the platform for rebroadcast, the platform is not supporting any particular message.
Cloudflare has decided that, for the most part, they won't get involved, but that there are some things that do actually cross the line (a line they are perfectly free to define for themselves), and they refuse to rebroadcast.
If you don't like that, don't support CF with your business. Otherwise, I'm not sure what horse you have in this race.
That's not a limitation on property rights. A farmer polluting the water supply is an example of the farmer damaging a shared resource that does not belong to him.
> Cloudflare to pollute public discourse by injecting the biases of its leaders into it.
This has nothing to do with "public discourse". CF is a privately owned business refusing to provide a service to a privately owned website. CF is not obligated to do business with them for any reason, and frankly, it's pretty reasonable for a company to want to have nothing to do with a website where domestic terrorism is regarded as funny at best and actually put into action at worst.
Direct threats to violence though will likely not be protected as it would stifle free speech. But, saying that some speech could "maybe" or "potentially" lead to violence down the line is usually not an argument against allowing it.
Besides, it should ideally be a democratically elected civil government who decides these matters, not for profit private companies and its leaders.
This sounds like the very definition of neutrality. Neutrality in a dispute is about not getting involved.
Neutrality is the store owner who chooses to ignore two customers who are loudly arguing about something. He will sell his wares to either customer, but he doesn't want to alienate either one by stepping in. Maybe one of the customers is obviously at fault, but as a neutral party he stays out of it.
It sounds like what you are implying is that there is no such thing as neutrality, either in this specific case or more broadly. Or you could be saying that neutrality itself is "wrong" in some sense, that's a philosophical argument and you could try to make a convincing argument. But if you accept the existence of neutrality as a concept, claiming that a clearly neutral party is not actually neutral because they are acting neutrally is a hard sell.