Somehow you are claiming that restrictions on the speech of an entity owned in part by a citizen has deprived that citizen of her rights. What has been denied is the 'over-reach' of the citizens who wish to extend their rights to their dues ex machina.
Even if corporations had no right to speech whatsoever (total imposed silence), their owner still fully enjoy their rights and have the same precise rights to free speech as those who don't own anything.
Even if corporations had no right to speech whatsoever (total imposed silence), their owner still fully enjoy their rights and have the same precise rights to free speech as those who don't own anything.