By changing the first reply post to:
Kobo could add to this list: "The right not to have ebooks you want to purchase denied to you because of geographic restrictions."
my whole misunderstanding could have been avoided.
It originally appeared that the commenter was criticizing the Kobo "Bill of Rights" for not including it. The "Kobo could add to the list" shows a commiseration with what they were intending rather than giving the appearance of negative criticism for its omission.
I should have followed my own precept to avoid replying to very short replies as the shorter the original reply the more room for misunderstanding.