To be clear, I strongly support free speech rights for many reasons, one of which is that I agree with you that they make democracy and society stronger.
But you're being reductive. Countries around the world suppress speech to varying degrees without collapsing or becoming autocracies in a single election cycle. Many European countries have notably less freedom of speech in specific areas than the US but are even still widely considered liberal democracies (praising Nazism is illegal in Germany; UK defamation laws impose some of the highest burden of proof on the defendant in the Western world).
The Yellow Vests in France may disagree - for several weeks they were protesting in large numbers, every weekend, and yet their wants and needs haven't really registered in popular awareness. Why is that?
My point hinges on ability to raise awareness of issues, to break into public consciousness with grievances. That's different from espousing a particular political ideology. That doesn't even technically require a liberal democracy, but specifically requires having proper channels for being heard out, and conduct society-wide negotiations. The political facet of freedom of speech.
We here in Europe aren't in need of propagating authoritarian ideologies; that would not help in the least. However there's a growing need to be able to discuss and form consensus on issues of immigration, taxation, and growing worries over the retirement pension systems in the face of shrinking populations. The subjects effectively became tabu in recent years, up to the point of having developed a wide array of euphemisms. There's growing frustration over them.
Right now the subject of immigration is mostly discussed by far right and far left parties and movements. This causes people interested in the subject to drift towards extremes. It should instead be up for discussion - and negotiations - on the political mainstream. The subject by and of itself is orthogonal to political ideology. Suffices to point out that the major political factions, both in USA and in Europe, have repeatedly shifted back and forth on the subject over the recent decades.
I'm really not sure what point you're making. Are you saying:
• it was inaccurate of me to characterize the UK, Germany, and France as being liberal democracies according to the consensus definition of the term?
• the consensus definition of the term is wrong or bad, and the term should have a different definition that France, or Germany, or the UK wouldn't satisfy?
• something else entirely?
P.S. I also am not sure what it means for the Yellow Vests' wants and needs to have not "really registered". Didn't Macron rapidly rescind the gas tax that initially sparked their anger, and then make a bunch more policy concessions besides?
But you're being reductive. Countries around the world suppress speech to varying degrees without collapsing or becoming autocracies in a single election cycle. Many European countries have notably less freedom of speech in specific areas than the US but are even still widely considered liberal democracies (praising Nazism is illegal in Germany; UK defamation laws impose some of the highest burden of proof on the defendant in the Western world).