>An obsession with the right to free speech over all other rights is invoking Poe's law if it's now being advocated for in the case of a warmongering adversarial state.
Should US citizens have been cut off from registrar providers in 2003 because of the war in Iraq? Let's be consistent here. If you think that a state being an adversarial warmonger is the requirement to deny it's people a service they paid for, even the one's who never wanted a war, then every person on the planet is liable by proxy of their current or previous governments.
>While it's not the aim of this move, during every war, communications of the enemy are hindered.
By an army against another army, not a private organization against civilians. Namecheap is not a military or paramilitary organization. Namecheap is a private business, and is still subject to US laws as a private business. Hindering communications of an "enemy" isn't a justification for outright financial fraud.
>The First Amendment would never have been written if the authors valued the rights of British Soldiers as much as their own.
I'm not able to follow what this is supposed to mean. British soldiers at the direction of the Crown violated the rights of empire's own subjects under the Coercive Acts and initiated violence in Concord & Lexington. The soldiers made their bed. The Bill of Rights were not ratified until until 1791, well after the war.
>The Russian government is not marching on Ukraine. There are no bureaucrats and politicians driving tanks. Russia's army is.
Who's directing the army? Who's the one in control of those nuclear warheads being brought out. The civilians aren't the one's driving BMPs or flying MI-8s. Most if pressed, couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map. I don't know if you're either absolving Putin of his actions as though he doesn't have free will or claiming everyone in Russia is as guilty as he is for being Russian, but this is a terrible argument.
>And it's Russia's people who give power to the state to direct them.
This is a false premise. It's almost laughable. You're conflating American jurisprudence with the politics of the Kremlin. In case you haven't noticed, the Russian government is not a government by the people or for the people.
>It would be absurd for an uncaring Russian individual to complain about essentially paltry financial or logistical issues as while being complicit in the erosion of Ukranian individuals' right to life.
In short: "Ukrainians have it worse, so Russian civilians should accept what's doled out to them". If you can think there can only be one victim at any one time, then I've got news for you.