I won't argue your actual point, but your examples about free newspapers is wrong. There is much evidence that newspapers because newspapers are heavily depend

I won't argue your actual point, but your examples about free newspapers is wrong. There is much evidence that newspapers because newspapers are heavily dependent on their revenue from advertisement (around 70%-80%), advertisements have a lot of power over them. Examples are when CBS could not broadcast a documentary on the environmental damages done by large industries (we are talking a few decades ago), or when newspapers did not report many of the evidence on tobacco's damage. In Italy Berlusconi even went as far as asking his industry friends to stop advertising in the newspapers who wrote stories against the government in an attempt to shut opposition. So there's ample evidence that the strong dependence on advertisement has damaged free speech. Until the Internet came along though, there was no alternative. As you point out without advertisements' revenues free newspapers would not exist. That is because printing newspapers and broadcasting tv shows is very capital intensive. But the Internet is making publishing costs very low, and hence letting everyone have a word (as shown by blogs or comment boxes such as this).