Yeah this is a good example of a free speech violation, that person paid for the billboard, the company signed a contract with the professor, they should honor their agreement if they didn't want to do business with the guy no one was forcing them. However after a contract was signed and money changed hands they are required to honor the agreement. The thing is they were looking at potential lost revenue so they decided it would be cheaper to not honor the agreement and deal with the consequences of that and while I don't agree and I think in the end it'll cost them more in reputation damage. This is the area where free speech gets really hard to define, do those companies that were threatening them have the right to threaten them due to speech they allowed? I don't know but what I do know is these are the types of things that haven't really been hashed out and they should be.

If using the lefts playbook only against them as they do it means winning, is it not worth it? This is a cultural war, this is how gamergate was won. If you knew the use of chemical war would only be used against you if your side used it would you still use it? Its unfortunate, and shouldn't be SOP, but im in this to win it, what is a bettee soulution? In GG, the lefties were calling for peoples jobs, hold them to their same standards untill they back off.

I somehow doubt this professor holds the same free speech standard for everybody dealing with muh private companies. This, however, isn't a violation of his free speech. It is a violation of the terms of his contract. So long as there is no clause stipulating early termination, the professor has every right to sue.

Also, billboard companies are publishers, not platforms.