Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree, which is why we do take malware and phishing sites, which we can judge as per se harmful, offline. Read more here: http://blog.cloudflare.com/thoughts-on-abuse Malware and sites advertising so-called "booter" services are different discussions.
(Sorry I'm just responding to all this now, 15 hours later) > Malware and sites advertising so-called "booter" services are different discussions. There's an important distinction here. You refer to "sites advertising so-called "booter" services." However, with the kind of sites I speak of, "sites providing so-called "booter" services" would be a better description. They aren't just advertising it; enter a valid user…
His refusal to remove booter sites from CloudFlare is completely indefensible. Any attempt on his part to suggest otherwise can only be interpreted as evidence of guilt. There is no possible arrangement of words which can make it okay.