No judge would take the case though. Not from an ideological stand, but from a technical one. Amazon (presumably) has a contract that says they can nullify the contract if you do things that violate certain conditions.
Say it was Amazon suing Parler here. Amazon says that Parler is doing stuff Amazon doesn't like. Parler says tough cookies, we're still gonna do that stuff. So Amazon brings Parler to court. The Judge asks what Amazon wants to do about this. Amazon says it wants to kick Parler off. The Judge says 'Yes, the contract between you two says you can do that. Why the hell are you wasting my time? Read your own contract, what are you, a buncha pre-laws?' Parler is then kicked off.
Bad taste or not, Amazon (it appears) is well within it's rights to dissolve the contract with Parler (which I have not seen).
I believe GP is referring to government legal action against Parler for "helping" organize lynch mobs. Extralegal retribution from oligopolistic service providers is of course also allowed by law, that just doesn't make it fine.
It’s not the same at all, but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Legal action against the platform would have been fine.