No, the whole point is that an isp should not be forced to do anything, unless ordered to do so by a court.

That’s not the point, no. The “whole point” from the EFF’s standpoint, if you’d bothered to read the article, is that ISPs shouldn’t block each other unless ordered by a court, even when lives are at stake.

Edit: Nevermind. I see you’re also responsible for this wonderful gem:

it’s going to take specialist agencies with mandates to request data civilians can’t. Crimes are being committed there (not murders, but a good way to get the scare votes, I suppose), and there are laws in place to deal with that.

(Unlike you, I’m not quoting out of context above. As I already wrote, there are no enforceable laws here, the only way the state can act is if it passes draconian laws that work on an International level.)

(Oh, and the quote out of context? We’re talking about the EFF demanding ISPs not block websites organizing the deaths of transgender people, while simultaneously saying it’s the role of the state while arguing (rightly) the state shouldn’t create draconian privacy invading laws to do just that. Explain please how you can be against privacy invading laws AND against private entities from deciding their infrastructure should not be used to kill transgender people, unless you’re actually pro-killing-transgender people? Because there’s no fucking middle ground here. There’s no third option between “The state shouldn’t take action” and “ISPs shouldn’t voluntarily take action”. What is it?)