It sounds like you are immediately suspect of anyone who has had success and thus become "powerful" (successful). The signatories of the Harper's letter, such a

It sounds like you are immediately suspect of anyone who has had success and thus become "powerful" (successful). The signatories of the Harper's letter, such as Noam Chomsky, Thomas Chatterton Williams, and Salman Rushdie, are successful because they have had long careers and widespread general praise for their work. Smaller, newer writers aren't "marginalized", they are early in their careers and need to work for a long time to break out in a cutthroat industry. The signatories of the letter make the person who disagrees with the current orthodoxy, and still supports free speech, feel safer and in good company for doing so. Signing a letter is quick and doesn't stop them from also helping solve all the other issues they believe in - people can do two (or more!) things at once. I am a lot less interested in political statements from people - you, me, the guy down the street - who are not luminaries in their respected fields. I am much more interested when such a diverse and respected group of people have those views. As a footnote, you say "might have supported it". Imagine hypothetically that it was published in some underground zine signed by unknown writers. What in the letter did you disagree with? It's a brief letter, there should be something in there that is clearly risque if you "might" support it?