Entrusting our speech to multiple different corporate actors is always risky. Yet given how most of the internet is currently structured, our online expression largely depends on a set of private companies ranging from our direct Internet service providers and platforms, to upstream ISPs (sometimes...
As always EFF is 100% right. This is a hard but important line to draw in the sand. Laws surrounding networks should be enforced "at the edges" not in the middle. Your ISP is a router, all dozen hops between your computer and the website you are visiting are routers, their job is to route, not filter. If some internet cable routes through a country with different laws, you want them enforcing their weird laws on the wire about how you can't insult their king? Of course not.
Or better yet, as is happening in this article, you want fucking comcast (or some other isp), the company that fucks you with their monopoly power at every possible opportunity, to be the arbiter of what is acceptable content and what is not? Fuck them. Leave that to the legislative process and courts.
If what you or the website is doing is illegal in the jurisdiction it is located, let local law enforcement handle it. They can imprison you or the website operator, that is where the crime is happening, the crime is not happening because packets are flowing from one end to the other.