that's not true at all. this congressional report[1] outlines the capacity of the government to regulate speech.
"However, the fact that a law affects speech protected by the First Amendment does not necessarily mean that it is unconstitutional. As
explained below, the First Amendment allows some regulation of speech and does not prohibit
regulation of conduct.[...]"
If a law does regulate speech, a court would consider the type of speech being regulated to
determine how closely to scrutinize the regulation. For example, a court may ask whether that
speech is commercial and, as such, deserving of less protection under the First Amendment.[...]
Certain categories of speech receive even less protection than commercial speech.
For example, the Supreme Court has said that states may prohibit speech
advocating violence if that “advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action
and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
Thus, certain types of threatening or violent
speech posted on social media may not be entitled to First Amendment protection"
And also concerning internet platforms in particular:
"A court might also look to the particular nature of the medium being regulated, asking whether
there are special characteristics that might justify greater regulation. The Supreme Court has
said that “[e]ach medium of expression . . . must be assessed for First Amendment purposes by
standards suited to it, for each may present its own problems.”"
So there's considerable complexity to the regulation of speech. It's not at all a binary issue.
[1]https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45650.pdf