Please explain in another way how it lacks entirely of meaning, because your current explanation is essentially lacking entirely of meaning.

How does my right to free expression require a state entity? That implies that right is provided for by the state entity. That's not how it works.

Here's an example of how a non-state entity can violate your right to free expression with the state's approval; you start to say something I don't like, I punch you in the face to shut you up. You try again and I punch you again. Now imagine a police officer standing right next to me watching me do it.