You don't have the right to patronize a restaurant that gets shut down for health code violations after it's shut down. There's no difference in principle here. Banning Twitter itself for failing to comply with the law isn't a free speech issue.
Now, part of the order makes it illegal to use VPN to access Twitter, which is an actual free speech issue, if you'd care to argue on those grounds.
Isn’t the use of a VPN analogous to using a back door (alley entrance) to visit the condemned restaurant? What difference would there be in your analogy?
Now, part of the order makes it illegal to use VPN to access Twitter, which is an actual free speech issue, if you'd care to argue on those grounds.