Hell, we can't even get Democrats to support conservatives having the right to speak their thoughts on social media - and you find having access to a private government server with authentication credentials to be a free speech issue? You're a little nutty there, fella.
I don't get what you are trying to say, there.
I mean, for decades in my country, there have been occasional noises made by the left floating the idea that the overwhelmingly right-wing print-media should be obliged to give 'right of reply' to that left. For example, the suggestion that the relentlessly-conservative Murdoch-press should be obligated to carry responses from the likes of trade-union leaders or Labour politicians after the papers attacked them, say.
At no point did 'conservatives' ever support that idea. Hell, I was never very keen on it myself. There are very obvious problems with the proposal.
But are you saying that privately-owned media outlets should be obligated by the state, to carry opinions of those they, or much of their target market, strongly disagree with? That seems like a dramatic turn-around for a conservative free-marketeer.
Or are you just complaining about people daring to disagree with conservative opinions on social media? E.g. conservatives being forcefully argued against on a forum like this one. That seems to be a common misrepresentation of what 'free speech' means, so maybe that's your point?
The truth is I feel very mixed feelings about that, to be honest. I can't square the circle - on the one hand right-wing posters on here regularly annoy the heck out of me...yet at the same time I absolutely think this forum would be really, really boring if they all quit. I can only conclude from that, that there's part of me that quite likes getting riled-up and aggravated.