This runs a thin line where orders of powers are in play, what has the most power in a certain realm and what conditions are to be followed or met. Are we argui

This runs a thin line where orders of powers are in play, what has the most power in a certain realm and what conditions are to be followed or met. Are we arguing legality of Freedom of Speech or are we arguing order of power and rights to all irregardless of ownership and power structures? If it is the former then yes, the law cannot arrest you for speech. If it is the latter, that is harder to ascertain, and I don't think (nor will I assume or paint a broad brush on these individuals) that people mean they want to force people to listen, but they want the same and equal opportunity to voice their opinion. Having the opportunity is not the same as forcing, and I would never conflate these in my mind. If we are arguing that America is the originating power structure and the servers are hosted in American soil, does that mean they must follow these bills to rights? Does the rights of those who claim ownership of the servers factor into the equation and do they have authority to govern whether someone should be capable of censorship? What about the network the opinion travels over? What about the country that the opinion comes from? What about... Many of these cases renders down to ownership case, and Capitalism at times is at disagreement with rights, and in this case, capitalism is what allows these to propagate in a way due to monetary ownership of grounds where opinions are being voiced. It's a very difficult conversation and road to navigate. It's not as simple as your statement renders.