Because there is no 'free speech for everybody online except racists'. There is just free speech online, and it is either defended or trampled upon. Two recent examples illustrate the difficulties in defending offensive material on the internet - but also the importance of doing so. But the plaintiffs argued that the distinction between the websites was meaningless, given that the US website is only a mouse click away from its French equivalent. The court answered 'yes' to that question.
French law assumes that an object defined as 'racist' can lead automatically to racist violence.
But it is the case that, in other countries like the USA, the fact that something causes offence is not sufficient grounds for a ban - the law rightly distinguishes between an expression of racism and racist violence. The company now uses special software to bar the sale of Nazi-related items. This self-censorship represents a turnaround in the company's defence against the initiators of the French lawsuit, but may open them up for further litigation in future. When hosting content can be interpreted as an association of responsibility, ISPs suddenly have cause to dictate the content of their customers' websites. CEO in one move.