You comparison is overbroad and overreaching, and compares apples to oranges.
I would think of it more this way: let's say that your phone company provider, be it Verizon or other LEC, decided that profanity should no longer be used on its phone lines, and installs special filters to capture and "bleep out" such speech. Would that be acceptable?
Okay, you're a clean-talking person, and I can respect that. What if Verizon happened to be more, say, left leaning in who it favors politically, and every time you wanted to talk to someone about how great the president is, the connection would go dead, because Verizon doesn't want to carry that kind of traffic? Yet strangely, calls praising anyone of Democratic affiliation never have this problem. That would be a little odd, wouldn't it? Would that be acceptable? Of course, Verizon could say "If you don't like it, go find another phone carrier!," but gee, they've done a really good job of stifling competition lately, and your ISP happens to be blocking Vonage. Pity, that.
Or! Even if we don't want to argue the constitutional route, let's go the technical route as to what are ethical business practices. Let's say that the local wireless provider installs a Motorola mobile telephone switch. Instantly, every phone in the network that isn't manufactured by Motorola gets lower connection priorities, are forced to transmit and receive in downsampled codes, miss calls, and calls that do make it through randomly drop, while all Motorola-branded phones are exhibiting remarkably crystal-clear reception. Would that be considered acceptable and ethical to you?
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers. Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.