Absent a holy book given to us by the divine, the way we decide what is and isn't a right is we look at its effect. Places that recognize a right to bear arms, for instance, do so because they believe that arming the citizenry protects them against abuses of the government. Places that don't do so because they believe that disarming the citizenry protects them against crimes from other citizens.
Free speech is not axiomatic. Free speech is a right (and I agree it is a right!) because it has particular positive effects on society, through the benefits of open and unfiltered public discourse.
But you're right that I hold free speech to be a right for its own sake. So it's that I first believe that to be a right, on grounds of personal preference, and then I advocate for it because of that. But obviously I cannot convince someone on that basis - though that goes for pretty much every preference.
That said, I think the particular issue here is that the abrogation of the right of free speech created by this action did not come about through any particular instance of the democratic process, and is not actually based on any process of formally weighing rights against one another, but rather who can threaten to cost companies the most revenue.
i'm European, you're arguing as if i had to meekly accept your framing that impeding someone from speaking is a bad thing
who is speaking and what they're saying is crucial to that assessment, hence you get to justify e.g. the threats KF orchestrated in Belfast if you want to justify keeping KF on the air
Speech does not require justification any more than any other right does. As a principle, speech is not for something. So I in fact have to neither justify nor endorse KF to consider this wrong.