> For one, this is speech that can only be done using otherwise regulated means.
This is the fraud every would-be censor perpetrates to establish their chokepoint. First, invent allegedly "neutral" rules that only large entities can comply with, causing only large entities to remain. Then lean on the large entities to censor whatever you want in exchange for political favors or lack of enforcement of other laws.
> You couldn't claim "free speech" and build a radio tower that transmits long distances, as an easy example.
Which is another great example of them doing the thing. The government couldn't spare a single frequency for unlicensed long-distance directional radio communications?
Moreover, the excuse for censoring the airwaves is that there is finite capacity in a broadcast medium, so how is that supposed to apply to a unicast service whose transfer capacity can be increased without bound by running more fiber?
> For that matter, you can't claim free speech to allow concerts at your house.
So if the government wants to declare that you meeting with two other people for the purpose of conveying information to them is a "concert" and prohibit it from any place that isn't a "concert hall" (which is prohibitively expensive for you to own), that seems fine to you?
> As has been pointed out elsewhere, if you want to take the effort to connect and verify the different parties that are going to communicate with your server, you are almost certainly going to remain free to do so.
All you have to do is the thing which is morally and economically unsound.
> But we already require inspections and other similar activities for things that individuals can do at home without an inspection.
Except that now you want to do it even when they are doing it at home.