That's not how the first amendment works, as it does put limitations on the kinds of speech that governments are allowed to favor (or disfavor). Just saying it only affects employment or contracts does not act like a "get out of jail free" card for governments.

Of course, there is a ton of gray area here that the courts will have to rule on, but the whole point the ACLU is making is that they believe these anti-boycott laws are in violation of the first amendment.

You're right, it's not how the first amendment is supposed to work. But it's definitely how it currently works.

"Free speech is just about government, private companies like Twitter can censor you"

"Actually free speech means you can lose government contracts or you job as a government employee too"

You know, at least I think China is a bit more honest about how they approach this question.

I'm not a fan of private companies or governments limiting speech, but there's a difference between the government saying "you're not allowed to say that" and the government saying "you're not allowed to say that if you want to be associated with the government".

It could totally be a slippery slope towards the government amassing more power and then granting contracts only to those who parrot the party line, but I believe the solution to that is to reduce government size and power.

And also, I don't find your position so controversial that you'd need a throwaway account.