The viral video in Baidu this week is of a student activist in Hong Kong who supports freedom of speech, and her speech (independence for Hong Kong) is explicitly illegal.

After we let people speak, and we dislike the speech, we can can then mock, disagree with, and poke fun at it, using our own freedom of speech.

There's nothing nonsensical about a person believing in absolute free speech as a core value and supporting businesses that share that value.

Just because you don't share a value doesn't make it "nonsensical".

Given the option I'd pick them over a alternative.

Either way (pro-quartering/speech or anti-quartering/speech) a business has no impact on those rights. A business can't decide to quarter soldiers in your house. A business can't "restrict" free speech (unless that business is a complete monopoly in that market, a separate issue) as a user can easily find another registrar or start their own registrar to meet their needs.

Put another way, if your local theater won't allow you to show "Triumph of the Will", that's not a restriction on your speech, because you can start your own theater.

Legally we agree, but I can also choose to not support those businesses.

How would you feel if Twitter decided to ban all people of color from being able to use the platform?

Is that something you're totally cool with, because companies can't possibly affect your rights to free exercise of speech, or is it something you'd prefer they not do?