>In some places, you can be prevented from saying something that others do not want you to say.

Not really. The consequences in some places are just so severe that it might be one of the last things you say.

Yes, in some places communications can be intercepted and blocked by government authorities before being delivered. Or, people can be deprived of communication privileges until they prove themselves sympathetic to oppressors. Some others will spy on potential dissenters and remove them from society before they have a chance to speak.

If you are going to be punished in any way for what you say, you don't have freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean that there's nobody physically preventing you from talking.

"consequence" doesn't necessarily imply a punishment or something at odds with your freedom.

For example: If you bad mouth a friend, they might no longer be your friend. This isn't a punishment for your actions or a restriction of your freedom.

Yes, but we're not talking about that here. Not being allowed to play a game you bought is a kind of punishment.

Will they also ban anyone who posts and Hindu swastika? Or the face of Che Guevara? Or anything related to ancient Rome? Or anything related to the Ottomans? And I could keep going and going and going.

> Not being allowed to play a game you bought is a kind of punishment.

I agree that is wrong, but I disagree on the grounds of contract law, not speech rights. I do think MS is well within their rights to prevent you from playing their game for any reason they want (other than membership in a protected class), but they should refund your money.

> If you are going to be punished in any way for what you say, you don't have freedom of speech.

So the punishment should instead fall on...other people? Because that's exactly what the sort of "free speech" you are advocating it - a restriction on other people's own freedom of speech and association.