I didn't say that you were
wrong, or dismiss your viewpoints. I'm pointing out that there is a broader debate here, which has value but is misunderstood by many. Freedom of speech as a philosophical concept spans wider than its codification in law, and probably requires adaption or extension in response to changing circumstances.
The "twitter mob" argument was really an ancillary point to show where one ends up if enough unpopular opinions are silenced. But it's interesting in itself. I don't think a participant in public debate in the 1700s would have reason to fear a crowd of tens of thousands stapling angry and occasionally violent rebuttals to their front door.
Okay, calling someone a fucking moron is protected speech. It would be problematic to censor it. But there is a problem if a crowd screams at someone who has valid (if controversial) points, if this happens to such a degree that they will self-censor or withdraw from the debate entirely, perhaps (rightfully) fearing for their livelihoods and personal safety. My example was a concrete instance of this.
Solution? Hell if I know. There's certainly a problem; a situation that has negative consequences. There's something to the viewpoint that cancelling someone is approaching an act of violence, where it affects a person's ability to earn a living and survive. But this is obviously not the last or only important point in such a debate. It's something that should be discussed widely.