Your examples refer to government not being able to prohibit the exercise of free speech.
Yet, you're using that example to try to justify forcing specific private companies and organizations to provide services to a specific political group, against their own will and even terms of service, just because it's convenient to the political group and it suits their political goals.
This line of reasoning also sounds very hypocritical given that said political group has been advocating for the right of said private companies and organizations to deny service based on political views, and going as far as publicly praising the companies that enforce that blend of politically-motivated denial of service.
No, not really. I've pointed out the mistake of conflating the right to free speech, as in the governments not being allowed to stop people from expressing their ideas and opinions without fear of retaliation, with the privilege of using (and abusing) someone else's services or infrastructure to advance your political ideals.
Convenience and rights are not the same thing, and not being able to benefit from the services provided by someone else does not mean your right to free speech is infringed upon.
To put it differently, just because you can say whatever you want that doesn't give you the right to grab someone else's megaphone to do it.
You are trying to explain this point to someone who’s entire belief structure relies on not understanding it.
You are right, damn right, but I’ve learned it’s not worth your time.
That's rather pompous, how do you know your interpretation / understanding is objectively correct and theirs is objectively wrong? Why is your personal understanding the correct one that other people are unable to grasp?
As a private citizen, I do not have to allow the KKK a platform on my property, nor would I have to publish their speech as the owner of a newspaper, or broadcast it as the owner of a television station.
Operative terms: Government and City streets.
In the US, the government may not restrict you from speaking (with some very narrow exceptions). City streets are public and under the control of the government.
F-Droid is not a government. Nor is its private property (its servers and infrastructure) in any way public.
As such, your analogy is flawed.
If what you appear to be advocating were true, I could come to your house, project (duly licensed, of course) gay, midget furry porn on your walls at max volume and you would have no recourse.
Private entities (specifically, those that are not the government) are under no obligation to host or promote the speech of others. And that's a good thing.
If you wish to stand on some sort of principle over this, I'll be by your place later with the foulest legal content I can find.
tl;dr: In the US, restrictions on speech only apply to the government. If you disagree, then you, me and everyone else would have to allow any content (whether you agree with it or not) on your private property.
I have no mouth, and I must scream.
Some people just don't want to sell it in their store.
You can't force people to sell your shit in their store.
I don't really see what this debate is even about?
I think this is actually the crux of it. Almost all communication now takes place on privately owned platforms in applications with curated availability. Metaphors comparing it to someone else's store (or someone in thread mentioned protests on your own lawn) are useless. They are so far removed that they aren't even wrong.
Why? Because there is vanishingly less space for public speech/press. We have a problem where what we mostly agree is a human right is now heavily under the control of private interests, and you are not going to like it when the pendulum swings the other way.