When you act to suppress speech with which you disagree, you're tacitly admitting that your own ideas aren't capable of competing adequately on equal footing.
That's the point where your post becomes a strawman. When you act to suppress speech with which you disagree, you're deciding that the negative effects of that speech outweigh the negative effects of suppressing that speech. Not some nonsense about losing in the marketplace of ideas, and definitely not some nonsense about "the only way it can succeed is by forcefully silencing the competition".
Incidentally, there is no country where you can speak freely without your speech being forcefully suppressed.