I don't know if it's a free speech issue but legally speaking it's definitely not a first amendment issue because the law targets foreign corporations and the Constitution doesn't apply to foreign entities

The ACLU hasn't been a credible defender of free speech in some time. (FIRE and EFF still credible.)

This issue is not about freedom of speech to any of the players. Its geopolitics. The ACLU and the EFF care about the precedent it sets.

Shocking news: different players have different motivations.

> Laws that does not explicitly curtail free speech but effectively still does

You can say the same thing about an antitrust law that forces Alphabet to sell Youtube.

Well they’re clearly wrong.

Go read the SC unanimous judgment. It’s very clear and lays out exactly why they’re wrong.

In fact they do a lot more than that because they state off the bat that there isn’t even a first amendment question (a Chinese corporation doesn’t have first amendment rights in the U.S.), but they go beyond, assume the first amendment does apply, and still explain why that isn’t valid.

ACLU is a biased organization and only supports the bill of rights when it suits their political alignment.

The 1st Amendment doesn't apply to Chinese companies operating in the US.