When the free speech clause was inserted into the constitution, the principle means of mass communication were small town newspapers and broadsheets. Just about anyone could create a broadsheet if they wished. The cost was trivial. Sticking it up where the entire town could read it was also a realistic possibility.
The rise of mass communication and the development of sophisticated psychological manipulation techniques mean that the assumptions under which "free speech" were promoted are no longer operative. There was an expectation that those who "spoke" in colonial times would be heard, there is no such guarantee these days.
So the aim should be to take steps to preserve the intent of the free speech clause, not the outmoded trappings of the idea. This means that those with the money and power need to be restrained in some ways. The ways, in a democratic society, are well known. New laws are passed to deal with new situations. They are passed in the name of "the people" by their representatives. Is this also an imperfect process. Yes, but it's what we have.
So when the major industrialized media firms become politicized it is appropriate to examine the degree of control that they have and take steps as necessary to restore competition. The consolidation of the media industries has made competition even more unlikely and the potential for abuse greater.
That people are jumping on the 9/11 film shows just how far from proper oversight the entire industry has gone.
Free speech is not free if those with opposing views can not be heard. We need to move beyond an outmoded model to where we have "free listening".
When a major TV network puts on a big show they get 30-50 million viewers. A minor station might get under one million. The New York Times, probably the most influential newspaper in the country, sells less than one million papers. The major opinion magazines have circulation of under 100,000 and even the biggest political web sites reach 10,000 or so.
What this means is that broadcast (and perhaps cable) TV need to be treated in a special way. Is this "unfair"? No. Those with monopoly power have to be subject to special regulation. For example, the fairness doctrine could be restored. In addition stations could be required to provide an equal amount of (free) air time to candidates. There could also be limitations on how much ad time political races could buy. Getting the money out of the electoral process was go far to correcting one of the major reasons why people are upset with biased TV presentations.
We have to deal with the world we have, not the fairy tale one taught in civics classes.