Re: It beings.
While I disagree with what TDS says, I will defend their right to say it.
This is a terrifying development that domain registrars are acting as censor, and stating that certain types of content can not even have a domain.
Ah, the old problem with comprehensive reading. EasyDNS' decision not to host them isn't censorship, because that would involve actively preventing them from going elsewhere (as a Registrar, you could block a domain from moving and then blank out the DNS settings so they're effectively offline). EasyDNS took a decision as a business that that was not the kind of customer they wanted which is a decision every business is 100% entitled to make. The arguments, to a degree, actually do not matter - they have that right, full stop.
Where the arguments come into play is to identify the motivation behind not accepting their money, and I think they are sound. You're looking at one end of the slope (which is IMHO not that slippery in this case due to the exact explanation of motivation), I look at the other end: where would EasyDNS end up if they did NOT do that? Should they also accept pure Nazi sites until the law comes marching with a warrant? Child pr0n outfits? Where do you draw the line of what they should "accept" as a business because it may otherwise be censorship?
When I review a need for service, one of the explicitly required points of examination is the ethics of the people that run it (which, by the way also has a bearing on how they treat you as a customer). We go that deep because it matters to us as the ethics and associated reputation of a suppliers are but one step removed from your own. EasyDNS became a supplier exactly because of discussions with Mark. I found his stance refreshingly sane and pragmatic, and these recent blog posts prove that yet again.