By drawing a line on the sand between human agents you agree to treat as such and human agents that you do not, you are assuming that human rights aren't unalienable, but depend on particular means to exercise them.

As an engineer, I don't believe in any substantial difference between my limbs, my construction tools, my internal and external memory, my e-mail account and my bank account. All of them are means in my possession I have an unalienable right to use individually in combination in order to achieve any lawful goal. The Bill of Rights reflects it in the First (regarding information messages) and in the Second (regarding physical objects).

Oh, that is so much worse than what I suspected you meant. No, there's no point in continuing this conversation. I withheld judgment thinking maybe I was misunderstanding benevolent concerns for the future of AI. Your further details lead me to believe you're very purposefully misinterpreting the Constitution for your own gains, so there's not much point in continuing the discussion.

Though, it would still be irrelevant in the context of spam on the internet. These companies are privately owned and so freedom of speech doesn't really apply except insofar as they allow it.