In my colossal ignorance of the constitution I don't see how a patriotic sign outside a private residence can be construed in the same terms as the examples you give. Your statements were that free speech rights were inalienable and they cannot be contracted away. Now you backpeddle frantically. Well, looky, I gess they can be.
A CID is a private organization you contract with willingly. A sign of any kind outside a private residence where the owner has agreed in advance not to put one up is a contract violation and can be dealt with as such (in a CID it means a fine or physically removed).
So it appeasr you don't understand the Constitution AND you don't understand basic contract law.
When I see a legal, laudable, modest gesture like hers repressed on the basis of some legal construct I tend to suspect the law might be wrong.
Here's a summation of objections raised to CIDs:
http://www.ahrc.com/new/index.php/src/news/sub/rptnews/action/ShowMedia/id/1224
I say these legalistic contrivances degrade basic property rights, and were designed for exclusivity and insulate directors from liability.
Further, the claim that these are voluntarily contracted is hollow as these schemes proliferate and more townships require them. And I predict, as I hope, that the courts will put a stop to them.
I concede you are probably right about the inalienability of rights. I spoke too soon. Of course you can give away your rights; we do it all the time. For example, see above.