I wouldn't toss Speech Freedom out altogether. The problem is that nothing is true in an undelimited, pluperfect, cosmos-spanning frame. Everything, be it "free" or "speech", exists between a set of boundaries beyond which their meanings become ambiguous and incoherent.

The occupants of Western nations no longer approach cardinal concepts with similar framing. At one point, the things which the LGBT movement now imposes on the culture were not in the frame of "speech". They were included within their own frame of "obscenity". "Free Speech" meant political speech. Reasoned speech. Obscenity was not entitled to protection.

This is now inverted: Obscenity is the only absolutely protected "speech". Dissenting political speech is curtailed and hidden behind paper sleeves, blackened windows and euphemisms.

The discursive space of the transition from one understanding of "Free Speech" to the other involved a stinking marshland of questionable political speech in which "speech" and "freedom" were dragged out of their frames, their frames demolished. I can understand how this supports the case that Free Speech is a flawed principle. It's not. Free Speech did not twist itself out of place. Nor was it twisted out of place by those native to the culture which conceived it. The people who inverted Free Speech did so out of malice. They need to go.