Yes and no.
No, I was not thinking merely in terms of prohibitions under law (though I can see why you might think I was, since that's basically all I talked about). Rather, I was narrowly addressing a particular point while avoiding the tangent of "oughtness" or making a moral judgment. Even so, thanks for the refresher on the subject, since it's been a few years since I've reviewed that specific material! And it is something with which I wish more people would familiarize themselves, since you're quite correct that people need to think beyond merely what the law allows/compels. I would assert that the law exists in the service of a higher moral purpose, rather than being an end unto itself, so it's good to review material of this sort occasionally so that a healthy perspective isn't lost.
As for the "yes", yes, you are correct, I was addressing the issue of what happens to our rights if we are being compelled to do something (though, as a quick aside, I was speaking of being compelled in a more general sense, such as if someone has a gun to your head). My comment was intended to point out a simple fact: an obligation, be it externally or internally imposed, to print the words of others will naturally come at the cost of other basic human rights. I never intended to suggest that meant printing the words of others was a bad thing, since I do agree that the right should extend beyond what the government permits. Even so, because of those costs, I also believe that the extent to which the right is extended should be left to the individual to decide. Otherwise, as we agree, it would result in the trampling of rights.
Sorry for the confusion, and I hope my overall thought process is a bit clearer now.