The point of free speech is to make democracy work. There's no reason to grant it to companies.

You should really familiarize yourself with caselaw surrounding speech, and educate yourself about rights other than the freedom of speech. Your ideology is far too removed from reality, but your phrasing is too absolute. Be honest about the difference between your desires and legal reality. Otherwise, nobody is going to take you seriously.

I'm fairly leftist, and I support a pretty strong freedom of speech, but I'm also familiar enough with other rights to see how they get balanced against one another, a la "the right to swing your fist ends at my face." I read popehat, because the authors are attorneys specializing in the first amendment. They defend people I find deplorable; they've got politics I disagree with. But I keep reading, because they're experts and it's a good source of fact.

Where did I say anything about US law?

Aside from the Principality of Sealand, is there a country whose laws reflect your ideology? Genuinely curious.

But to answer your question, apple is first and foremost a US company.

> Aside from the Principality of Sealand

Sealand doesn't seem all that socialist to me but I'm not very familiar with it.

> But to answer your question, apple is first and foremost a US company.

Rights != what the law says rights are. Else it wouldn't be possible for the state to violate your rights on a large scale.

Anyway, Apple is subject to the laws of every country it operates in.

So I can censor a newspaper company who is publishing things I disagree with?

Of course, unlike the newspaper itself.

I don’t understand. Can the government control the contents of the newspaper and decide what the newspaper company may publish?