I'm seeing a lot of takes that "Chomsky is pro free speech because it was the leftist position when he began his career".
That's understandable, but what changed? Leftists used to favor free speech when the right held the power but they don't favor it now?

Coz now the cultural left has attained a degree of power? Now that the cultural left has a say in popular media and campuses and so on, it's gonna turn it's back on one of the biggest principles it has historically championed? That means it was about opportunism, not principles.

I think we need to understand what free speech is because a lot of people are talking on different frequencies.
There's legality, then there are social norms.
On the legal front, I don't think anyone's serious about making new laws that restrict free speech.

The threat to free speech exists largely on the social front. That's where cancel culture (as amorphous and overused as the term as become) is aimed.
Criticizing someone isn't a threat to free speech. Getting "ratioed" doesn't take away your free speech.

Artists getting boycotted by individual members of the audience isn't a threat to free speech either. As a member of the audience, the content you consume is entirely up to you.
So what exactly constitutes a threat to free speech?
First of all, I think everyone here would agree

That targeted harassment, doxxing and threats of violence are completely out of line. Unfortunately it's something that's far too common on social media, by both sides of the debate.
A second thing, even more problematic, is getting employees fired.

There are certain instances where it can be understandable. If you see a medical or psychological professional giving rape threats to someone, or engaging in similarly abusive behaviour otherwise, it's probably a good idea to let their employer know.

But in most cases, getting people fired is unjustifiable. Most of the times, the people who lose their jobs are the ones at the bottom of the pay grade. The sort of employees the business can fire and easily replace. In these instances, it doesn't matter what they did.

Businesses don't care about justice. They care about their PR. If an employee is expendable, they're gonna fire them without a second thought. Such an employee would then have a hard time finding a new job too. You're basically destroying someone's life.

For example, there was a retail worker who got fired for jokingly using the word "retard". Cases like this are more common than people think.
What exactly does getting such people fired from jobs accomplish? Does it magically make them better people?t

Then there's the issue of deplatforming, which is a very controversial topic. Honestly it deserves an entire thread to talk about in detail so I won't attempt to bring it up here.