I'm engaging in curiosity to understand. I'd love to understand your position better. You wrote:
> What is being prohibited is an adversarial government having complete control over an entity that can decide which speech is delivered to which specific audience.
That seems to imply that certain voices or ideas must be excluded to prevent this control. Isn't that, at its core, a decision that some poisonous thoughts should not be allowed to reach certain people? If not, how do you see this distinction? Does freedom of speech not include freedom to hear what others may find objectionable?
