But that's what Musk wants to fix on Twitter, so I think it's applicable.

> For example, what does not having a PR dept supress?

On the face of it nothing, but if the PR dept is closed to make it harder for the press to ask questions, then it's indicative.

> And the right to not send a luxury good to a journalist/blogger is hardly a free-speech chilling penalty

Of course it is. The next reviewer (if he wants to buy one) will either not review the car or try not to upset Musk with his review.

> refusing service is not censorship.

Well, then how is refusing service to right-wing users on Twitter censorship?

> to make it harder for the press to ask questions

entirely different from censorship or suppression of speech - in fact this is the right not to speech. Free speech implies to right to information.

> The next reviewer

Same issue with paid reviews, these motivating examples are not much of a challenge to free speech.

> how is refusing service to right-wing users on Twitter censorship?

Because twitter is a platform for speech, buying a Tesla isn't the same. That said, if there weren't a few large corps monopolising social networking (and usually via shady methods) it wouldn't be so much of a free speech issue either - There would be an issue if Teslas was one of a few car manufacturers also.