As a relative blanket statement, since thats what we're making here, its not a free speech issue. I believe most western countries that hold the embodiment of free speech, largely exempt private entities from being adhered to the same free speech laws as the government is. There are caveats and things in every country, and I'm not educated enough on that to list all the exemptions and caveats, but broadly speaking, I believe this to be true in most western countries that hold free speech as a right and/or common law

So i still wouldn't say they're stopping free speech by not including a website in a google search. You can argue, and I think rightly, that it would stifle the freedom of information to be discovered that wants to be discovered and consumed in that way, however, its not actually silencing or shutting down the website it may be censoring and/or not including, and it is still accessible.

Its not 'my speech' either. Illegally downloading and spreading content isn't speech in the first place, and the courts have ruled as such, as do the laws we currently have in place reflect that.

At the end of the day, I'm not seeing much of a justification for people getting content illegally.

If it is legal it not for Google to decide, but given government. They should not interfere. If government says that given site is illegal they can take it down for that particular government/country. (just like github is doing for the Russians - https://github.com/github/gov-takedowns)

The courts, the laws, and the judicial system have decided what is and isn't legal. Should they filter results by country? Sure! and I'm not saying they shouldn't.

The government has made its decisions on this many times. They're largely following the patterns laid out in those lawsuits cases laws etc.

Can't imagine anyone disagreeing the sites they are banning don't distribute illegal content as a primary reason why people visit them in the first place.

I'd say thats a good (and strong) litmus test for this sort of thing.