I'm the first to say that private organizations are not required to host or entertain someone else's hate speech, but that doesn't mean that government organizations should be censoring it.

That's the key difference here. And the fact that the host didn't give them a heads up about the service cancellation.

Agreed, and I should make it clear that I don't believe a private hosting company should have to serve any client they would rather not serve. Personally, if I were going into the hosting business I would set a policy up front that we're not in the business of moderating content, just because I think taking responsibility for it would be a nightmare. But I'm not in the hosting business and they should be able to do as they wish. Having done this, though, they will be obligated to continue policing the content on their system, or run the risk of being accused of bias.

What about "Die, you people with red hair!" Can I drive down the road shouting that? Or will we need a government commission to study from time to time which groups it should be illegal to threaten? Maybe all threats should be illegal? Of course, it's often difficult to discern intent from speech, and some things that sound threatening might not actually be threats. Could get tricky.

Threats of violence against individuals are considered outside the scope of the first amendment by the supreme court.

The only people who don't understand this are those who spout these things themselves. They also don't understand private vs public or freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences