You do understand that the internet crosses borders while national laws don’t right?
It’s perfectly ok in a personal and professional sense to have your own standards rather than just throwing up your hands and saying “well it’s not technically illegal… in this country”
Power and water providers could also have "their own standards" and refuse to provide service to people whose opinions they don't like.
See where this is going?
I prefer clear rules for everyone not - we have freedom of speech, but we'll find a way to punish you if you say something some rich person doesn't like.
Literally nobody is talking about that here. Once again you seem to be trying to reframe the argument into something so abstract that it no longer has any meaning.
In actuality we are talking about an incredibly specific and concrete thing here which you don't appear to be really interested in trying to defend head on for what I assume are obvious reasons.
That is the problem with just relying on these jingoistic approaches of "let the courts deal with it". There are a whole bunch of scenarios where that doesn't work. You and I both know that which means we need other options.
We can talk about where the lines should be and under what circumstances but not doing business with Nazi's who have a history of real world harm without relying on a court order to legally prevent you from taking their money is not in the same league as any of the scenarios you are describing. The argument you are making really doesn't stand up to even the lightest of scrutiny the moment you start to get into the details.
It’s perfectly ok in a personal and professional sense to have your own standards rather than just throwing up your hands and saying “well it’s not technically illegal… in this country”