Once that distinction is made, one can argue about which consequences one should be free of. US law, for example, strictly ties the government's right to censor (i.e. being killed upon uttering any criticism of great leader is out-of-bounds) but the also-present freedom of the press and freedom of association implies private individuals' rights to refrain from sharing information or associating with various entities, and there is a, perhaps questionable, expedient that extends those rights from individuals to corporations in the US (being fired upon uttering public criticism of dear CEO is, except for specific carve-outs mostly paid for in blood during union strikes, acceptable; a corporation is not the government and has no obligation to continue to serve an employee at odds with the corporation and what it stands for, while governments have no such luxury and must serve even their "malcontents").

More generally, the "BUT MAH FREEEEDOMZ" argument comes up in response to criticism or social consequences like shunning. E.g., Person A turns out to be a pseudonym-using prominent white supremacist. When revealed, they receive a heap of public criticism and are fired, because their boss does not want to employ somebody who thinks other employees should be killed. Some will claim that people should not say unkind things to/about Person A, and that Person A should be able to keep their job. But that impinges on the free speech of the critics, and the right to freedom of association of the employer.

The case is trying to force YouTube to associate with PraegerU.