Patagonia's actions are 100% within their rights. Patagonia's actions are 100% about exercising their rights, as you say. Both Facebook and Patagonia are entitl

Patagonia's actions are 100% within their rights. Patagonia's actions are 100% about exercising their rights, as you say. Both Facebook and Patagonia are entitled by the First Amendment, as reiterated by Citizens United, to exercise the freedom of speech directly, on behalf of their owners or shareholders. There is no First Amendment violation of any sort. Nevertheless, the thing that Patagonia are exercising their rights to do is a call for censorship. The point of the boycott is to pressure Facebook to censor users' content, with the aims of preventing certain viewpoints from being expressed. These viewpoints are likely noxious. This is a call for censorship in practice. This exercise in free speech seeks to undermine the exercise of free speech. This movement is a call to reduce the freedoms which is made available in practice to the people of the world. I do not believe it will stop here. I believe it will not stop until it is very harmful. I believe someday the fruits of this movement, if successful, will gravely harm the freedoms of expression generally. I therefore condemn and denounce it (though I will not call for it to be censored.)