She was fully within her legal rights, as has been pointed out many times by US civil rights lawyers including those that have successfully defended MAGA people deplatformed during the past administration.

Your "assumption" is simply incorrect.

> She was fully within her legal rights

To park her SUV perpendicular to the road and refuse to move when there was a federal law enforcement activity underway in the area and federal LEO required her to move?

Do you consider that freedom of speech protects this inherently?

Could a counter-protester park his car perpendicular to the street in front of protesters trying to get to a rally, and claim that this is similarly protected? Let's stipulate that there's still a free lane that they can merge into.

> as has been pointed out many times by US civil rights lawyers

Cite one.

> including those that have successfully defended MAGA people deplatformed during the past administration.

If they were deplatformed, they would be the plaintiffs in any ensuing civil action, not defendants.