Supporting a social issue and providing the public with a platform to voice their own opinions, those not of Blizzard as a company, are two vastly different things.

Agreed, but they did give him a platform in this instance. A brief interview timeframe after the match to say whatever. Despite the intent, he used to the time how he chose to use it. Blizzard also made a choice on how to react to incident.

I did not say that every decision they have and will make is something they did not want to decide.

That's why they have a contract, they made those choices before actions occurred because they wanted to control an outcome, which is why they needed a "catch-all" clause at the bottom. Much like how the military has Article 134. The problem here is someone has to make a reactionary choice and enforcement action. What they "liked" is obviously at odds which how much money they're willing to make.

You say "some people" as if I don't have principles.

Actually I was referring to Blizzard, but good job projecting. I enjoy reading these opinions and having the discussion though :)

But ask yourself first if it is worth destroying something or deleting something to hurt a companies fee-fees.

Abso-fucking-lutly! Company's only exist if there's profit to be made, and if they do something scummy, they should have to pay for it. Much like how I get a ticket for driving 40 in a school zone. Who's going to support me and my goal of getting to work on time in this situation? No one.