I don't disagree, and I think that's an ideal virtually everyone agrees with. But an ideal alone cannot be the premise for asserting an enforceable change to th

I don't disagree, and I think that's an ideal virtually everyone agrees with. But an ideal alone cannot be the premise for asserting an enforceable change to the status quo. The reason why the Founders – and subsequently, the courts – enshrined freedom of speech from government censorship, is because that is the most the government can enforce without violating other limitations and stipulations of the Constitution. It's not as if the Founders completely forgot to consider "Hey wouldn't it be nice if everyone had a right to be heard in our society?" If the author wants this ideal to become reality, then he needs to accept giving greater power to the government (or propose a completely different paradigm). The fact that he apparently can't – possibly because he recognizes that increased powers would end up undermining freedom of speech – is the reason why things are as they are right now.