When you act to suppress speech with which you disagree, you're [...]
Abandoning the same principles upon which you yourself depend. Acting directly against your own best interests. All because of
the negative effects of that speech
I see. Fear. Pure and simple fear. Fear of ideas is very dangerous, which is why protected speech is so important. You depend on it greatly, yet you'd deny others the same liberty -- because all the what-if's have you terrified.
Not some nonsense about losing in the marketplace of ideas
Don't be foolish. If you thought ideas with which you disagree couldn't out-compete your own, you wouldn't be so damn terrified of other peoples thoughts, opinions, and ideas. Certainly not so afraid that you'd act against your own best interest, abandon important principles, and actively suppress the rights of others.
You don't worry about the content of the mad ravings of a crazy man on a street corner, nor something more wide-spread like a serial killers manifesto published in the newspaper, because you know that no one will take their ideas seriously. Their ideas simply can't compete. You do, however, care a great deal about the mad ravings of public figures as they are seriously considered by a large number of people.
Incidentally, there is no country where you can speak freely without your speech being forcefully suppressed.
That's dishonest at best. There are limitations on speech here. None of which, you'll note, have anything to do with ideology. Competing ideologies, after all, are what are under discussion. I'm free to write and publish all sorts of vile nonsense promoting the legalization of murder-for-hire services, pro-terrorism propaganda, and, yes, even pro teen promiscuity pamphlets.
Presumably, you'd actively suppress those ideas as well. You certainly seem to think I would. The difference between you and I, obviously, is that I'm not terrified by the ideas and viewpoints of others. So, no, I would not act to suppress those ideas.
I'm also aware of the dangers that comes from suppressing speech. How much have you, and this modern atheist resurgence in general, benefited from that liberty? What do you think the consequences would have been had the politically powerful majority been able to take forceful action to suppress those ideas? Don't you think they strongly believe that "the negative effects of that speech outweigh the negative effects of suppressing that speech" and would thus be justified by your own reasoning?
You're afraid of competing ideas, by your own admission. Assuming that you don't also fear ideas that have no chance of success, you clearly don't believe your ideas can compete favorably in the marketplace of ideas as evidenced by that same fear.