The point isn't "all regulation is good." The point is that "some companies will go out of business" isn't necessarily a good argument.
To continue your SOPA connection, "Google will go out of business if SOPA is enacted," isn't a good argument in and of itself. You're assuming that Google staying in business is a good thing.
Arguing against regulation of X because companies that have built a business around X being a certain way will go out of business necessitates that an explanation of why X continuing on in the same manner is in the interests of the general public.
I agree, though I don't think I should be assumed to rely just on that fallacy. The problem here is that just because a law purports to serve an ideal doesn't meant that its side effects should just be waved off as a necessary evil.
As an example, stopping terrorism is generally seen as a good thing, yet opinions differ on whether the laws that purport to prevent terrorism are good, and the government has also used such laws (such as e wire tapping allowances) to justify non-counter terrorism ops.
To continue your SOPA connection, "Google will go out of business if SOPA is enacted," isn't a good argument in and of itself. You're assuming that Google staying in business is a good thing.
Arguing against regulation of X because companies that have built a business around X being a certain way will go out of business necessitates that an explanation of why X continuing on in the same manner is in the interests of the general public.