[notacoward]

I don't see the two as being equivalent. For one thing, the contractual issues involved in the two cases are quite different. For another, one case could be considered to have involved criminal activity while the other clearly does not. On the other side of the ledger, Visa/MC enjoy a level of monopoly power that nobody in this case does. Those are just too many differences for a comparison to be very informative. I'm slightly inclined to say Visa/MC's actions were wrong, but not on that basis. The principle still stands. It also stands regardless of whether I or anyone else applies it consistently in disparate cases. Legal severance of a commercial relationship is still not censorship, and it does not harm anyone's right to free speech. Denying people that manner of expressing themselves, on the other hand, does abridge free speech.