[andrewcooke]

I'm not sure what your point is here? You're saying that you can define freedom of speech in a narrow way so that Amazon is off the hook. Great.

But that doesn't change what they've done - it just makes you look like a lawyer making excuses for the inexcusable.

[pyre]

It sounds more like this: "If Amazon is wrong for refusing service to someone that is hosting potentially-controversial content, then that implies that no hosting company can refuse service to such a person. I.e. that person is 'untouchable.'"

This seems to cross lines with the 'Affirmative Action'-type arguments: that in an effort to 'make up' for past wrong against black people we are making it impossible to refuse X (where X could be employment, etc) to a black person, even if the reason isn't because of their skin color.

{update} I was only attempting to clarify what I thought that the parent poster (gp to this post) was getting at.