It'd be like complaining that you can't get sushi at McDonalds anymore. You couldn't ever do that, McDonalds haven't indicated that they would offer this and we all know it's not going to happen.
I am obviously not talking about our current legal framework, but proposing the idea that the concepts and reason for free speech are meaningful enough to transcend that framework.
It's not "my parents started beating me while they in the past didn't", it's just "parents are beating me." Or "google is suppressing my speech."
Past actions of the involved entities do not invalidate the complaint. Likewise, "the grocery store next door doesn't sell sushi" is a legit complaint for the afflicted regardless of whether sushi was sold in the past or not. (Coincidentally, my go-to store just stopped selling sushi a week or two ago)
See italicised section, it suggests there's a promise of free speech on Google that are somehow reneging on. I am just saying that this is a mistake, and now loads of people seem to be mad at the idea that I'm attacking "free speech". One of the reasons I thought it shouldn't be here is that it's fairly complex topic that IMO is orthogonal to the case in question because it raises all sorts of thorny side-issues that distract from the main thing: someone got booted from Google quite unfairly.
And "principles" are things you can adopt and agree with as you see fit. They are not law. Not everyone takes an absolutist position that "free speech" is a principle we should all be defending to the last ditch.
And if the customer can't take their business elsewhere, it appears we have arrived at the underlying problem.
You can call it a violation of rock and roll, if you like. Normally, "violate" is something you do the law, or a contract, or an agreement. You can't normally "violate" a principle that you haven't declared your adherence to, just because someone else adheres to it.
So while your statement is true, it is not the discussion-stopper that most people seem to think it is.
The phone company used to be regulated so even if you were a hated Republican they still had to provide phone service to you if you lived in their service area. Those days are over and monopolies in practice will never be redefined again as "legal monopolies".
