> doesn't get that speech and action are different things, and that either all speech is protected or none is.

That only covers how government is supposed to act, right? I mean, a hosting company is free to pick how their service is used. If a client insists in abusing and breaking the law by, say, repeatedly publishing hate speech, doesn't the company has the right to act? I mean, just the reputation hit makes this a business liability.

I covered that in the 2nd paragraph. Publishing hate speech is not against the law, it's not even a real definition. The greater point is that the company can do what it wants but we should be wary as companies turn into major oligopolies/monopolies with arbitrary unaccountable policies. See Youtube and Facebook for the current crisis.