Surely this is unsurprising. It seems like nearly everyone who makes a big deal about "Free Speech" hasn't really put the effort into fully and authentically understanding it.
> The Bill of Rights was designed intentionally to “prevent a sheep and two wolves from voting on what’s for dinner”.<p>I think this is backward. A lot of the "tyranny of the majority" talk at that time was about a minority of wolves (i.e. aristocrats) trying to balance more democracy (so they don't get taken advantage of by a king) without going too far towards actual democracy (so they could still take advantage of the poor, enslaved, women and minorities).<p>So a closer analog would be stopping two sheep from voting to take lamb off the menu of the single wolf. Or slaves voting to end slavery.<p>Of particular historical note is the timing of laws and constitutional amendments that make taxation need a super-majority to change, i.e. giving a minority a veto.
For many people "free speech" also refers to the rights of companies to determine which speech is supported on or through thier platforms. Beware any large shareholder who claims to be a free speech absolutest. They most likely think of free speech as a power to be yielded rather than a right to be protected.