Not necessarily, and no. The idea that free speech is an absolute is one of the great myths of our time. Sending that virus is a form of speech, I guess, but government can prevent people from sending viruses. Almost everyone agrees that criminal conspiracy, and threats to kill or maim people, can be regulated. If you try to ruin someone's reputation through words, you might well be committing a tort under the law.
Most people agree that child pornography can be regulated on the Internet and elsewhere.
This is just a glimpse at the long list of areas in which societies regulate speech, even though they're fully committed to freedom of expression. No one is really a free absolutist. For people who care about free speech, the trick is to come up with standards that would allow us to decide when speech can be regulated, and when it can't be. Absolutism is a nonstarter, because it pretends that lines won't be drawn. Information is travelling at astonishing speed.