It seems that you want different First Amendment rules based on the content of the message. If the content of the message is about one's own product, then one can be forced to say certain things. If the content of the message is about alternative products, then regulation cannot force people to say it.

So you don't have a problem with coerced speech per se. What you are really saying is that coerced speech is a problem, but in some situations the governmental interest (the regulation saying "I contain cancerous materials" on cigarettes) outweighs the problem of coerced speech. But you are doing a balancing test between the governmental interest and the individual's right not to be coerced. This kind of balancing is a policy decision.

Before this court ruling, this policy decision would be handled through the legislatures. If people thought that regulations went too far in coercing commercial speech, they could use the ballot box to fix it. But now this policy decision is being made by the courts. The people no longer have the ability to decide the question. It has been forever decided for them.

That is the "liberal" problem with this decision. Since the 1930's, the Supreme Court has consistently held that economic regulations should not be decided by the court but should rather be handled by the legislatures making policy decisions. This case is an example (the union case today is another one) where the conservative court is making more economic regulations off limits for legislatures because of its own policy preferences. It is justifying these decisions on First Amendment Grounds, but its actual analysis involves a policy judgement.