That is what freedom of speech implies, yes.

There's a strong difference between being in favor of the _right_ of freedom of speech but against specific instances of speech. They are completely different. I'm in favor of their right to go to the black market, but I'm completely against them actually going to the black market.

This reminds me of the “DeCSS” case, where claims were made that a specific number was not allowed to be spoken or transmitted or otherwise shared. ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS )

Obviously the DeCSS people lost that argument.

Banning someone from saying “by doing X you can bypass security feature Y” is going to be a difficult one to get past the Supreme Court, at least in the USA.

So if they have a right to go to the black market, then Apple has no case. Or rather Corellium might have a case against Apple for tortious interference.

Total freedom of speech would imply that you're allowed to make movies about cartoon mice and publish information about military designs. No country has total freedom.

Substitute “exploit” for “speech about security” and you will see that doing so is explicitly protected under US law.