The current interpretation of the 1st Amendment is that anything less than "Fighting Words" (something that will “produce a clear and present danger of a serious intolerable evil that rises above mere inconvenience or annoyance”) the government can't interfere with. The delineated exceptions to free speech are obscenity (which is very poorly defined: the famous Potter Stewart line 'I know it when I see it'), child pornography (reasonably clearly defined), fighting words (defined above) or the related "true and imminent threat to violence or other lawless actions" (emphasis on imminent and lawless). Reposting publicly available data falls into none of those exceptions (after all, the government is the original source of this data!), so the government could not legally take this sort of action, here in the United States.

As an example of what a jury has found to be true and imminent threat, Flip Benham's Save America organization was printed up and distributed "Wanted" posters, with the names and home addresses of doctors who provided abortion services, and put the posters up on the homes and around the neighborhoods of the doctors. Things that don't rise to that level of threat are protected by the 1st Amendment against government retaliation.

Musk is, of course, free to not follow the guidelines that the Government is required to. But by the same token, we have free speech rights and are free to criticize him, make fun of him, and otherwise denigrate him for being a lawless hypocrite who is actively promoting evil in the world.