Yes, but... they're both wrong. The trades that Robinhood blocked were objectively bad trades, and the people they stopped from buying would almost certainly have lost all that money.

Now, I agree that there's a good first principles argument (and also a bad populist one) that people should be allowed to trade their own money into scams if they want. But the idea of proving damages here based on the idea that GME was going to CONTINUE TO GO UP after a 500% increase triggered by a short squeeze is just insane, sorry.