Why do you think it makes a difference whether Cloudflare meets California's public utility law? The law, which could change, doesn't solve the moral objections

Why do you think it makes a difference whether Cloudflare meets California's public utility law? The law, which could change, doesn't solve the moral objections you have here. Or does it? Do you think it's OK to provide network protection to Kiwi Farms is California politicians say so, but not if Cloudflare says so? Corporations are people because you can sue them. This is good. Money is not speech, but spending money on your speech is legal (and good), just because money flows through a corporation doesn't mean speech that would be legal otherwise can be restricted. This is good. Whether Cloudflare meets the legal definition of a public utility doesn't matter. Nobody, including Cloudflare alleges they have to provide the service. The provide the service becauase they want to prevent network attacks from everyone. This position is mutually exclusive to protecting people from other, non network attack harasssment. From their words they want to address and remove the negative externalitiies of network attacks, and you can't do that if you pick and choose at all.