That's definitely not true, please realise the whole free speech argument is useless outside the US. Anyway, I think you'll find it hard to get people interested with such an argument, even if it is an interesting way to put it.
But your first point - the argument about owning a product - is easy to understand and much more persuasive. That's why the John Deere DMCA thing got so much press, and also why I'm convinced that the downfall of the EULA will be because somebody tried to limit ownership of a physical product (and not software, which may or may not reap the benefits, but won't be the catalyst).
God, this is getting out of hand...
Yes, of course you can. Confidentiality agreements, kn-disparagement clauses in settlement... it happens all the time.
Not to mention that the first amendment limits government censorship. Private parties are, as a first approximation, free to agree to whatever terms they like.
There’s also fraud, obscenity, and defamation laws. All limiting free speech. And, of course, using graphic cards has nothing to do with free speech.
If not, where do we draw the line? Luckily, it seems that people hate this kind of thing.
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2015/2/5/7986327/keurigs-attempt-to...
Yes, in every country on Earth, for very obvious reasons
Ever signed a non-disclosure agreement?
A contract used in the old times 1800s to be one to two pages of simple English that both parties negotiated the agreed terms on. Now EULas almost requires a degree in law to understand yet you abide to the terms under civil liability. Further more Eula’s are so long most people blind sign without reading and understanding the terms.
There is also questions whether terms in Eula’s are legal such as limiting free speech about the product. In many countries free speech is a right regulated as basic first amendment laws.
Can you limit free speech?