It would be nice if these companies could have stood for free speech here, but the rational for censorship is enlightening: they were afraid of retaliation from

It would be nice if these companies could have stood for free speech here, but the rational for censorship is enlightening: they were afraid of retaliation from the government for violating anti-terrorism rules. And the speaker is in fact a terrorist who hijacked a plane, so this is a pretty plausible worry. They weren’t clear about exactly what high rule would be violated, but then again a lot of these rules can be vague and subject to interpretation. We may need to redirect our ire toward the government who creates these vague, restrictive rules and regulations instead of the corporations who are forced to tiptoe around them.