Not sure why you are being down voted for posing a question which I think is relevant. I think it's because you worded it so generally instead of more specific

Not sure why you are being down voted for posing a question which I think is relevant. I think it's because you worded it so generally instead of more specifically to the article at hand. I don't think some of the responses you got were very convincing either (in my opinion). I'll respond to a few: > Hm we live in structured societies in which laws are used to restrict individual liberties to protect collective ones. It's not that hard to grasp Sure, there may be restrictions on certain things you can put on a website generally (illegal content), but I think the GP's question is about this specific case. No laws were broken, and the website is not a government venue. It is a business, which also has rights/liberties regarding what they choose to allow. For instance, if I goto a a subreddit and start talking about something completely off topic and it gets removed and I'm banned, who cares? That should be allowed. > Because you live in a society This might be a relevant response if you take the GP's question in the most general way possible, but applying it to this specific case it is not really adequate. > Why do courts have the power to tell me who I must serve in my restaurant? I don't think this really applies to the situation here. It's more like if you went into a restaurant and started acting rude (but not doing anything technically illegal) and the restaurant decided to throw you out, which is totally fine and normal to do. Also, at a restaurant you are a paying customer doing 'business' (trading money for food), whereas at Facebook it's more like you are the product. You aren't really trying to make a business transaction with Facebook.