In the nearly one year which has passed since I returned from my hiatus, I've come to appreciate, more than ever, the need for free and open debate online and in the real world. Freedom of speech is one of the most essential liberties which we have; it underpins many of our other rights, and is vital to the successful and fair operation of civil society. Hence, I would agree with the underlying sentiments expressed in this letter.
At the same time, however, freedom of speech does not mean that one should be shielded from the consequences of what they say. As we've interpreted it in our jurisprudence, freedom of speech has meant that one cannot be restrained or harassed by government; it does not mean that one cannot be punished by their employer, or criticized (and even scorned) by other members of civil society. This is particularly true when someone engages in hate speech or the like. The Supreme Court has recognized that hate speech is constitutionally protected, but such recognition does not extend to the actions of private actors, with regards to whether or not they will employ or interact with someone who utilizes such speech. That is the distinction which I think hasn't been fully recognized here.
The Constitution focuses on government not punishing speech since it is a document dealing with the role and limits of government. That doesn't mean it's not an important principle elsewhere.
Poll
