It's complicated because the most serious threat to free speech in the US right now is cancel culture, but most aspects of cancel culture are explicitly protected under the first amendment: "...or abridging the freedom of speech [private corporations choosing what to host on their websites, calling someone's employer and requesting that they be fired for what they said], or of the press [this garbage https://parade.com/news/simu-liu-under-fire-joke-batgirl-can... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble [twitter mobs, unless you count their speech as violence in which case we are back to square one], and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances [here, demanding that a government employee be fired https://www.change.org/p/ucla-fire-ucla-professor-gordon-kle...].
I'm sure they are being completely genuine. They completely miss the irony that they are essentially saying "the most serious threat to free speech in the US right now is the free speech of people I disagree with".