I think you're both conflating the concept of "free speech = good" with what forms of speech are, at this moment, permitted or forbidden by US law. For someone

I think you're both conflating the concept of "free speech = good" with what forms of speech are, at this moment, permitted or forbidden by US law. For someone who believes in the concept of free speech, the fact that US constitutional rights to free speech in practice almost certainly do not protect overseas business interests is really an embarrassing corner case. Even if you do genuinely consider national and foreign actors to be different kinds of entity, so that it could be ethically sound to protect one and not the other, there's a simple technical reason for constantly the distinction to be artificial: Free speech protection can be gained merely by funnelling the speech through an intermediary US citizen.