cybersquatting (i know, it's out of order)

Cybersquatting is a shifty practice, no matter who does it. The article that was "in favor" of allowing cybersquatting in fact was nothing of the sort. Cybersquatting is normally thought of as individuals trying to make a quick buck off of corporations or famous people by getting to a domain name first. The type of cybersqatting talked about in the aformentioned article is much more sinister to me: corporations trying to stifle free speech and criticism. The fact that Verizonreallysucks.com is a website for verizon is absolutely ridiculous. Also the febreeze websites were apphauling. Febreeze should be as heavily attacked as the poor fellow who owns nissan.com, rather more attacked. The fact that they even took measures to procure febreezekillpets/dogs/cats/birds.com is scary. People should have the right to tell others that this product is killing animals so the consumer can make the decision to buy or not to buy with all applicable information. I am much less disturbed by an individual purchasing a domain name specifically to sell for a high price than a corporation trying to stifle criticism from dissatisfied consumers. Both are shifty, and neither should happen, but the latter is much much worse. In short, cybersquatting should not be illegal per se, because when illegal wealthy people and corporate hounds will use the illegality to harass people. After all, isn't cybersquatting entrepreneurship? And isn't making money at the expense of others the American dream?