Gamers talking about free speech drives me up the wall, because it's almost always a selfish, accusatory appropriation of the concept based not on anyone's rights actually being violated, but by the emotional hurt that happens when consumers exercising their right to disagree with a fragile person's favorite product and that product's creator, which in itself is free speech.
On top of that, it just reeks of white knighting. I am an artist- an animator- who has been subject to harsh personal criticism of my work regardless of my own intent, as well as been invited to critique the work of others in turn on multiple levels. It is how I and other artists have grown, and it's how mediums have bettered themselves, and I would be shocked if any potential fans of mine were trying to silence my dissenters, because they are cutting off a base of knowledge for me to continue improving all in the name of trying to stick up for me, as if I can't stick up for myself. Artists producing a work and then having criticism and backlash against that work for technical, quality, and/or social reasons are entering a highly valuable and necessary dialogue that doesn't need to be hijacked and undermined by fanboys and non-artists who are not interested in the discourse at all. Like me, Sean can take care of himself; he doesn't need you or anyone else standing up for his non-violated rights.
By complaining in this manner, by saying that we are limiting Sean's free speech because we believe he misrepresented his product (
a form of which is actually illegal), you inevitably shit on free speech itself. You and the elements of gamer culture that subscribe to this thinking would ultimately do well to keep the term "free speech" out of your mouths versus trying to bludgeon every person with it who is willing to critique video games and their creators, less you hack and dilute the term further into meaninglessness than you already have.