If the DoS prevents the attacked service from “speaking” itself (by exhausting resources) then I would assert the DoS is analogous to assault and not protected

If the DoS prevents the attacked service from “speaking” itself (by exhausting resources) then I would assert the DoS is analogous to assault and not protected speech. Also, intent fits in here. The name itself gives a hint- denial of service as in taking something away from the victim. What about the use of legal threats and NDAs by wealthy individuals and corporations to silence speech? Take what happened with the whistleblowers at theranos for example.