I've got a new way to look at this if i might share.
Best way to look at is a case of property rights, not free speech.
"free" speech doesn't exist anywhere I know of. The old example of "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" situation holds true to that. It is dangerous to the persons, and detrimental to the business owner.
Same thing with political speech, a protestor doesn't have "the right" to yell obscenities at a private event. at least not something the property owner disagrees with.
So perhaps this/these cases online, are the respective governments staking their claim of "ownership" of the internet, which is very anarchic in it's nature.