I think your assumptions about OPs arguments are correct. I think a more charitable way of looking at it though is that one must confront what loudest people wi

I think your assumptions about OPs arguments are correct. I think a more charitable way of looking at it though is that one must confront what loudest people with a following are doing with a public issue, because regardless of who is or is not the 'true' representative, the loud ones with the followings are going to end up (have ended up?) defining it. Perhaps a better take than to limit arguing on the point of what is actually 'free speech absolutism' would be to argue that those to whom the OP refers are not actually representatives are are bad faith actors? After such one can define it, or, better yet, come up with a new set of terms not yet defined out of bounds.