Grumbling about censorship by Internet providers is a departure from the usual complaints about the lack of restraint in largely unregulated cyberspace.

Rather than protesting government interference, Internet users say their sites are being shut down, content deleted and their messages blocked by service providers deciding what is permissible and what not to allow through their service on the Web. The conflict takes on greater significance as the availability and reach of the Internet increasingly makes it more appealing for conducting business and personal communications.

Its general openness allows it to be a public forum for posting messages and reaching countless users worldwide. Government regulators have taken on some socially acceptable causes such as restricting access to online child pornography, but there is general resistance to regulations that might also limit access and discourage or silence political expression. Government rules open the system to intervention by a host of regulatory agencies.

However, service providers see matters differently. They adopt their own policies subject to their enforcement that is often a judgment call. It is a business decision. Providers seek to prevent spam, halt copyright violations, block indecent material and thwart security threats, but enforcement requires a decision that can please one group but raise the ire of another. That happened when the photo of an adolescent boy smoking was deleted although it was part of a broader documentary.

Unhappy victims of provider content monitors cry censorship and violation of their constitutional rights to free speech without due process to challenge provider decisions. Yet Internet service providers are not government agencies. They are private companies, and they are free to impose their own policies. They do, however, need to be clear about them and consistent in their application.

For those who do not like what Yahoo or MySpace does, they can always go someplace else.