The author's point was that service was indeed cut regardless the site's legal status; that transcends into a free speech and freedom of press issue.

"These aren't places for homosexuals, these are places for paedophiles."

Wrong. Free Spirits, which hosts Boychat amongst other websites, is a Boylove resource. There is a concise difference between pedophilia and boylove. Pedophilia is defined as sexual attraction to pre- pubescent children. Boylove transcends that boundary into a much more broad spectrum of age. BLs are attracted to teenagers and young adults. Male/male. Homosexual.

But let's assume that you're correct and that it's strictly for pedophiles. Does Verizon have the legal ability to ban on that premise? Where does it end? Does this mean that NetSol has the right to ban “objectionable” domain names? This creates a very rickety premise for free speech on the Internet.

"The purpose of these boards is to promote Adult / Child sexual relations."

Wrong again. Let's look at the Free Spirit's homepage:

"BoyChat is a forum in which boylovers can explore issues related to their sexuality and provide mutual support and companionship - to learn to lead productive lives in ways that help young people rather than harm them."

It would appear that they promote nothing more than freedom of expression amongst boylovers. Therefore, what your claim that Free Spirits is promoting illegal sexual activities between boys and men is false.

Why was Epifora cut off? If there's no illegal activity, then how on earth could Verizon have the legal authority to arbitrarily shut off service? It's a slippery slope in which GLBT organizations worldwide should be familiar with, and that is exactly what the author of the article in question is talking about.