I would argue that the internet is the primary medium for exercizing one's free speech today. The technological change made printed medium outdated. If you are not on the interent, you will not be heard. If the the government decided to configure the crucial internet infrastructure (domain name resolution) in a way that private companies can censor speech(registrars and verisign), then it's effectively a violation of the first amendment. Because what this ammounts to is government saying that the medium of public protesting or sharing printed material is protected, but the medium of electronic communication is not, because we decided to privatize it. It's like saying you can't protest here because we decided to privatize all the public squares and paved roads, their owners don't want to see you, and the fist amendment does not protect you there, you can protest on a dirt road in the forest(TOR etc) where no one sees you.
I feel very uneasy about these events, because it's a precedent. Censorship of the interent in Russia began with pedophile histeria in the media to justify the laws, and now it's used to censor opposition supporting media. Considering the changing tastes of upcoming college graduates in the US, in terms of interpretation of what constitues free speech and what doesn't, the political censorship could become intstituionalized in the US through "TOS violations". And through this censorial normalcy could eventually pave way to the end of the current absolutist legal interpretation of the first amendment. Which would be very bad IMO.