If it's legal, the service provides should have no say.
This is like christan toll-bridge operator not allowing people to pass the bridge, if they drove in from the direction of a brothel.
if it's abusive of the people patience and potentially dangerous, the government can and should shut it down.
it's not illegal to carry arms in most of the US, but in some places they can ban you if you carry one, because they don't want to deal with you or be responsible for what you could do with it.
it's not illegal to drink in many parts of the Globe, but some people could not want you to drink in the children's playground at 9 in the morning and if you don't leave on your own they might call the police.
society has rules other than legal/illegal.
it's the perk of living in what's called "a free country".
Some of us consider this a bad thing, even though it's still done in some societies (eg. USA).
If someone starts a harry potter microbloging platform, and the content there is legal, and the technology works in a way, where a want-to-be-offended pastor has to actively type in the url/name in the browser, to see the content and get offended, this should not be a reason to ban that platform. The same with eg. not being able to disallow customers of the shop that sells harry potter to use public roads.
Internet services and payment processors should be treated the same as other utilities... as long as it's legal, the services/processors should not be able to deny service due to political reasons, because they believe harry potter is against gods will.
it's not good or bad.
it's the price of freedom.
what's the alternative?
having the police to beat those people burning the books?
silence them?
kick them out the society/country?
> Internet services and payment processors should be treated the same as other utilities
I'm of the opinion that depending on the service they should have much more responsibilities than service providers.
For example social networks that algorithmically propose content should be considered editors/publishers and be treated as such, including being responsible for the content they publish.
Who’s the censor in this conversation again?
I’m having a hard time squaring the idea of free speech maximalism with “a certain group of people should have no say.”
We have laws set in place where we decide who can drive on roads using which kinds of vehicles, and road operators and owners (not sure how road system works in USA, in my country, some roads are country-owned, some are owned by the municipality, and some private ones can join the road system - eg. the long road from the main street to the IKEA entrance), and if the driver has a licence and a stret legal vehicle, s/he can drive on all those roads, even if he carries gay porn and anal dildos, and the municipality is full of christian/muslim radicalists.
So, as long as the content is legal (regarding the laws of the country), no service provider should be allowed to block you from using that service and/or connection to view that content.
that's not how it really works.
what you are describing is a totally nuclear society, where everyone is on their own and mind their own business.
if in the car you've mentioned in your example there's a kid sitting in the back, I would alert the authorities.
Not because it's illegal to dive kids in a car full of gay porn and dildos, not because the content is for gay people or because dildos are not toys for kids, it's not even because I believe in some weird story about magic eternal beings that have nothing better to do that dictate books to their disciples about what I should or should not do, but because it should ring a bell to everybody.
The first idea was EU blocking rt.com (and some other russian sites), even though their content is perfectly legal, but EU doesn't want the people to look at that content there.
Globally speaking, in the same time, US (and nato and other "allies") attacked quite a few other countries, iraq, afghanistan, syria, libya, they're bombing somalia, bombed pakistan, etc., and none of the media was blocked back then.
Even the taliban are allowed to maintain their twitter accounts ( https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-twitter-allows-taliban-ma... ).
And now, we're blocking RT, for what?
I mean, even the taliban are allowed to keep their twitter accounts - https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-twitter-allows-taliban-ma... - but not russia?