Harping on about that narrow, technical aspect of the free speech is an excuse for some people to argue that "yes, the government can not limit it, but we can." However, the concept of free speech is so precious that democratic governments not only refrain from limiting it, but actively protect it. Hence the police protection, once it is properly registered and approved. And since my view is not unique, as you rightly noticed, but quite widespread, it is certainly of consequence.
There's no reason at all that private companies or individuals can't limit speech within their legal sphere of influence. The is not, and never has been, about such limitations. It has always been about communal limitations and that means, in a democracy, the government.
We've already seen limits on speech set in this thread by the moderator - ignoring it being a Canadian and not US website, where are the howls of protest? There are none, because we all accept the right of the operators to limit speech as they see fit (and we can participate or not as we see fit).
So any discussion about the broader principle of free speech is fine, but it's only the effect of it that counts. Where does the government (and the law) draw the line? Other matters of principle are grand and all, but they don't give rise to an effect.
