I think you misunderstand the case in question, but I'm also responsible for a poor choice of words.
If you're talking about the Coastnews case, then the speech in question is that of the search engine operator, eg Google, Bing or whoever - not that of the person conducting the search. This is what I meant when I say 'Your search results' but on re-reading I can see that this only confused matters.
So let me put it this way: Your search results are not part of your free speech, but of the search engine operator's. If a firm chooses not to share information with you because of where you live, the firm is exercising its own right to free speech, notwithstanding the fact that you end up getting less information than you hoped for and that this is undesirable for you.
In the US they certainly legally are, and as a curated list of "relevant" results, I'm curious what else you think they might be?
(I don't believe that's what the article is referring to, though, instead it's Bing as an overeager gatekeeper of what people should see)