The letter you wrote to us out here in society is pitiful. It is also bad and short enough that it merits a classic line-by-line rebuttal that was in vogue in 1997 when people on primitive webforums were first putting your ideas down like so many tumor-stuffed dogs. However, I will spend a couple moments posting a more general response to the overall thrust of your letter before I get to that.
The concept of free speech is one of those redundancies that belies a hidden purpose. By redundancies I mean, "free speech" is something that exists before it is ever codified or defined as a "right" "guaranteed" to "citizens." If you didn't have a formalized notion of free speech, you would still be able to say or write anything that you can say now. When you say "free exchange of information and ideas is the lifeblood of liberal society" it's not much different than saying, "free exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the lungs is the lifeblood of liberal society." The point you're making is not that the free exchange of ideas is important to liberal society, but that not-liberal society restricts the flow of information. And of course, that's just a dumb point for you to make. To understand why it's a dumb point, try considering intellectual property laws, which are very strong in Amerika but not so strong in a place many of you despise, China. The reason Amerikan tech companies and fast food franchises can't succeed in China is because intellectual property laws are not obstacles to recreating a successful business in China the way they are in Amerika. In Amerika, McDonald's includes in its asset portfolio the actual methodology of frying hundreds of millions of suffering animal parts; in China, these ideas are freely exchanged to anyone who wants to open a fast food restaurant. How many of your co-signatories will agree with me that China is therefore a more liberal society than Amerika?
Free speech is a redundant concept; you can say anything already, without knowing that you have free speech, and if someone tries to restrict your speech, they are already committing a recognizable crime. If someone physically restricts your speech they are assaulting or murdering you. If someone uses threats to restrict it, you're being blackmailed, extorted, or harassed, and in many Amerikan jurisdictions a threat itself is thought of as assault. If someone steals your words or unfairly represents them, it's plagiarism, or libel, or slander. These are old concepts because free speech has existed for about as long as independent human thought. None of the average people that I know needs anything like "freedom of speech" to protect them from having their voices suppressed.
Who are the people who most need to have their voices heard in this country? Of course, the millions of people currently dying in the vast Amerikan gulag system. Prisoners have been teleported to another dimension where their voices cannot be heard by the media. Is it fair to say that their "right to free speech is being suppressed"? I think we should say, they are being denied access to family, friends, and lawyers, and these are already crimes; their mail is delayed or lost or confiscated and this is already a crime; they are threatened, harassed, attacked, malnourished, isolated, exposed to COVID-19, baked, frozen, extorted, enslaved, and more in retaliation for speaking against their conditions or the carceral state in general, and these are already crimes. Journalists will report on prison issues without ever talking to a prisoner - when prisoners should be crowding out the careerist wardens and lobbyists in your columns - and you, who arrogantly wrote society a letter about free speech in the year 2020, believe this is not a crime, because the profession of journalism is not capable of self-regulation.
Who are the people who least need to have their voices heard in this country? I thank you for compiling the list in advance. We can add anyone who said there were WMDs in Iraq, just for example. They should be sent back to school, and the class they should be forced to take is "What Happened in Fallujah and How You're Going to Spend the Next Ten Years in a Hazmat Suit Cleaning Up After That 101." Note that this is more than just "losing your career," which for a professional racist means finding a slightly smaller rock to slither under for a year. Cancel culture? People who get "canceled" for writing racist things in a newspaper in the year 2020 are being given an amazing opportunity that no previous revolutionary period in history would have dared afford them: the chance to autodidactically correct their evil beliefs and continue breathing air among non-bigots.
Once you're canceled - and thank you all again for volunteering to go first - you can still say anything you want, just like us normals. The only thing is, no matter what we say, nobody cares. It kind of sucks. But it allows us to see the hidden purpose of "freedom of speech." That is, it's the freedom of rich people to say openly how awesome it would be if they had slaves or if more poor people died. You will also find that "freedom of movement" is not about allowing you to go where you want (you need to be at your second job) but about allowing rich people to fly on exorbitant private jets to islands where they can do tons of pedophilia away from prying eyes. It's about maintaining the class comfort of rapid travel for a select couple million rich people, that most of us common people only use every couple of years when a family member dies of a preventable illness.
Anyway, I appreciate you all trying to discipline the stupid hordes, but we're going to keep canceling the shit out of bigots. Remember: real change comes from within!