You must have terrible split ends, with what you seem obsessively compelled to do to hairs.

You think the difference between being the whole of a group and being (a) member(s) of a group is 'splitting hairs'?

Actually, now that I think about it, your statement only gets worse. It's not nitpicking, it's espousing the tyranny of the majority. You're saying it's okay to suppress the rights of part of a group because the rest of the group thinks it's okay.

No, it is acknowledging that citizenship is not restricted to employees of one particular company or of a select group of companies. For example if Apple, google, and Coca Cola got together and hired mercenaries to invade French Guiana (because hey, what are the French going to do about it?) and write a new constitution such that only employees and stockholders are considered citizens, then the employees of those companies would have much more power to enact change in accordance with company policy.

That's not even close to what's happening here.
Brazil is arresting people for saying things the government does not want them to say. How is that not suppressing their freedom of speech?

I don't think anyone has said that is not what is happening, simply pointing out that being a portion of the citezenry as opposed to the entirety of it inherantly limits one's ability to enact change.

I must be missing the point you're trying to make, 'cause I'm not seeing how it's important. Here's my point: Someone's right to free speech is being violated, and I don't care if it's one person or all of them, it's wrong.

You are missing the point. Grossly.

Kindly elucidate what bearing "It's only one guy" has to do with anything, and for bonus points do it in a manner in which I cannot paraphrase as "Tyranny of the majority is okay so long as I'm not in the minority".
'Cause not only are you missing my point, you're doing it in a very scary way.

It's only one guy indicates a limited *ability* to effect change, it does not denote a belief that the change is not desirable.