[belovedeagle]

But free speech rights do extend to those private spaces since the government can't of it's own accord order you out of that private space any more than it could a public space, nor punish you for speech per se in private spaces. Conversely, if by your speech or actions you violate the rights of others, whether it be some general right like private property rights or some privilege arising from private contract (e.g. an NDA), the government (even if only government qua the courts) can punish you regardless of whether you are in a public space or private. Hence we can say that the nature of the space you occupy is not relevant in general to freedom of speech, only when the specific nature of the public space further distinguishes cases where the government (qua the executive) is acting as adversary of its own accord. In my view it comes down to the distinction between places "owned" by the government as if by a private owner, and places "owned" by the government as custodian of the commons, but that's obviously an insufficient legal distinction.

[dredmorbius]

The question is one of de facto free speech rights, given access to physical space, platforms, or media, especially those removed from the common weal by state intervention in the first place: broadcast spectrum, land.

If you look to court decisions, you'll find that the strict literalism you and others are following is often tempered by a pragmatic consideration.