It is absolutely about legalities. Look at the complaints that are made when defending this type of content. The call it cancel culture in an attempt to victimize the aggressors as being unduly treated because of their opinion. The boycott has always been a tool to defend civility and putting your money where you're values are. Calling it 'Cancel Culture' is just a new phrase to delegitimize the right of people to stand up for civil discourse and to respond to tyranny with their wallets.
They call it "cancel culture" in an attempt to express that people are too willing to boycott nowadays. Certainly a boycott is sometimes justified, but it's a problem if people start organizing a boycott every time they hear an offensive statement.
A Hispanic man in my state got fired 2 weeks ago, because an activist mistakenly thought he looked white and was making an OK sign.
But really, even banning people from Youtube for saying offensive things is too far. The slogan "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" used to be a powerful summary of an ideal we aspired to. Nowadays, I get the impression that most people can't even process it; I expect you'd argue that defending Molyneux's right to spread his obnoxious views means I'm approving of those views.
