> "private companies are typically free to do as they please in free countries ... free governments also tend to have strong laws respecting the sovereignty of other nations"

Not always. For example, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prohibits U.S. companies from bribing foreign officials, even if the practice is accepted or prevalent in a foreign nation.[1] Just because another country has a particular policy does not mean we have to allow our companies to play along.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act

I don't think this is the counterexample that you intend. The prohibition is where this bribery is illegal in the foreign countries, even if it happens to be commonplace. Bribery is never "policy", else it would be called something else (as in the U.S., where we call it "campaign contributions").

It applies even when bribery is legal and does not distinguish whether bribery is legal or illegal.

After reading the linked Wikipedia page, if it's accurate then you seem to be correct. The act prohibits influencing foreign officials by giving them things of value, and doesn't mention whether that would be illegal in the foreign country. So it would seem that a U.S. corporation would be in violation of this law for doing in a foreign land what they routinely do within the U.S. (essentially all large U.S. businesses make, or aggregate, "campaign contributions" with the intent to influence lawmakers and other elected officials).

A very good point about the hypocrisy of the American system. Campaign contributions do look very much like bribery.

> private companies are typically free to do as they please in free countries...that's kinda the point

Er, no; in every "free" country, trade/export restrictions are still a thing. US corporations can't sell to North Korean citizens, or even Cuban citizens, despite not being in a state of war against either. And "munitions" (e.g. what encryption algorithms used to be) can be traded hardly anywhere. Just call censorship-enabling technologies "munitions" and it neatly solves the problem of who exactly US corporations can give them to.

> And "munitions" (e.g. what encryption algorithms used to be) can be traded hardly anywhere.

That regulation is only in place to protect the established players ... and to ensure the CIA decides who gets the weapons.

That kind of reductionism is not helpful. It's not so simple as "private companies are free to do as they please". In fact many restrictions and regulations can and must be made to ensure that those private entities don't: poison rivers, murder people, manipulate children, steal from costumers, and countless other things. In principle at least, because we know that there are innumerable examples of companies doing just that when it profits them.

Nonetheless, among such regulations, designed to make private companies somewhat work for the general public interest, we can include not aiding censorship.

>You have no right to use AWS, so this is not censorship in the legal sense.

I guess you meant "duty" instead of "right"; and respecting the sovereignty of other nations means they can block any site they like or even internet itself if they desire, but it doesn't mean we have to allow local companies to comply with laws from those countries.

>As you note, private companies are typically free to do as they please in free countries...that's kinda the point.

That's not the point at all; lets put it this way, companies are NOT free to poison the water we drink or even poison the water of other countries drink just because their governments tell them to do so.

No, I mean right. You have no right to use AWS and thus if they restrict/prevent your usage of said service, on grounds that would otherwise infringe your rights, this is not illegal per se. I might have a right to free speech, but so does Amazon.

> And free governments also tend to have strong laws respecting the sovereignty of other nations

This nearly made me cough my lunch over my keyboard.

Countries tend to have the habit of respecting other countries sovereignty right up until they don’t, at which point they will invade and occupy the other. Or carry out a proxy war, etc.

Even that is too generous. Which country of any influence doesn’t at least a few spies getting about doing their spying. Which major players aren’t subverting the course of things in at least a handful of regions at any time.

Sure, but they do maintain an official public stance of non intervention which is what's at hand here, because companies must abide by that official public stance, not by off the record spy activity.

Ah, yep, sorry, I was going off in another direction there. Thanks for pointing that out.

Private companies are not entirely free to do as they please in free countries. There's always some degree of non-free-ness. It's not at all unreasonable, and it would be at all surprising, to find free states forbidding cooperation with non-free states' oppression. Indeed, it happens all the time in some way or another.