Re: There's no paradox
The paradox was artificially created by the losing lawyer (LL) in conflating freedom of speech with freedom of the press. Both are protected by the First Amendment and this ruling neither imparts nor extends any freedom of speech by corporate entities because it doesn't address the topic at all. What LL knows is that the vast majority of folks have never actually read the First Amendment, let alone the Constitution, and recognized that he can score some publicity points and induce a knee jerk response from folks who equate the First Amendment with free speech and nothing else.
What is really going on is the judge correctly understands the difference between positive rights, which don't exist except by fiat, and negative rights, which are what the Bill of Rights guarantees. Simply put, freedom of speech is a negative right in that no one is required to do anything. It becomes a positive right when someone is forced to listen when they would rather watch a football game or provide a medium for the speech. It's not a positive right because that would inevitably infringe the Fourth Amendment rights of another. Note here that I assume that businesses are property and forcibly requiring a business to provide a positive right is no different from forcing its owners and denying them Fourth Amendment protections.