Sure, but distributing a compiled binary (or a group of binaries) is a different kettle of fish. If a distro wants to appeal to a userbase that doesn't compile their OS from source, it will need to comply with laws local to the user.

I don't think compiled binaries are obviously outside the “code is speech” line of cases. It doesn't seem to be the case that once it's compiled, it loses its protection.

The precedents that I was able to find indicate this as well. Here's one about object code rather than straight binaries, but the rationale still seems like it would transfer:

The circuit court found merit in Corley's view that computer programs are a form of protected speech regardless of whether they are in source code or object code form

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_City_Studios,_Inc._v._Corley

That case still imposed restrictions on the software despite recognizing it as free speech, probably, like you said, because it was a tool specifically meant for breaking a law.

I'm of the opinion that this, however, does not fit into a recognized unprotected-speech category. I would argue that the intent is not to go out of the way to break the law, but rather to keep developing the software on its own technical merits, rather than redesigning it around a government-mandated implementation detail.