> Simple answer. A chinese owned company has no such rights or protections. Free speech does not apply.

The Constitution does not place limits on which people are protected by it (you don't have to be a citizen for it to apply as the founders were looking to limit the powers of their government not their citizens). And with the expansion of those protections to corporations through Citizens United, I'd be surprised if a court found that `company + foreign != person + foreign` when they've decided `company == person`. (Well not surprised by this Court.)

> The law also does not censor content (so no free speech violation anyway). The law simply bans the distribution of the app on marketplaces stores for reasons stated (national security). Big difference.

The rest of your comment still stands right in my eyes. National Security has often been used as a means to bypass many things enshrined by the Constitution.

The court has never determined that corporations are people, that’s a completely unfounded meme.

What they did find was that (real, human) people have certain rights that they are able to exercise by organizing into corporations.

Isn’t Alphabet and other tech companies technically Irish owned? Doesn’t Saudi Arabia own a chunk of Twitter? Seemed like the whole ownership ship justification is a cheap canard.