Eh, such a question even being asked makes me concerned, even more concerned assuming you live in the US. Take advantage of the 1st amendment more and you'll see how important it is and why it's such a cornerstone of human rights; It doesn't matter how many people appear or don't appear to take advantage of free speech, make your opportunities, don't wait for them. Think about what would happen if the government writes it away as a human right, There are even real-world examples: Kim's North Korean Regime and Xi's Communist China. The Constitution is meant to protect and elevate our human rights, not to put into official document current injustices, so people perceive them as common-place, It's supposed to empower us when things are wrong to change them!

People with authority are not made of finer clay.

I would almost argue the opposite. That the right of the public to free speech is far far more important than the right of people with "authority". I mean the right to free speech among all people, high up or not, is very important.

But it's much easier for people in power or with said authority to get their thoughts and opinions out to the public just by way of their status and following.

Besides most of these people in power or with authority are incompetent assholes who would sooner murder a baby with their bare hands than lose a bit of this "authority".

But that's just my opinion.

Your post answers its question.

The fact that you're able to put these words in an online forum, albeit one that perhaps has very little political influence, indicates an opportunity to voice your opinion. If it's a matter of opportunity, then the public has much more in abundance than that of high-ranking officials. Every time somebody posts a controversial question or statement is an opportunity seized and taken advantage of in the realm of free speech. There is more of the public than there are high-ranking officials, therefore the opportunities, per capita, are more as well.

High-ranking officials indeed have more of an audience than that of the average member of the public. This gives the high-ranking official a tremendous advantage in terms of communication and influence. There are many cases in the past where high-ranking officials have deemed it appropriate to remove freedom of speech from those they serve, and in nearly every case it has gone terribly wrong for both them and those they lead.

New premise: Inverse the question and the current law. Consider that if there were no "right of speech" and you were asking "Should the constitution ADD this right?"

If high-ranking officials had deemed that there should not be freedom of speech, then it stands to reason that you would not have the freedom to ask this new question,(as it would undermine what they have determined is better for the public) and legal retribution might be taken against you. The ramifications of simply speaking your mind and asking an innocent question could literally be death for the person asking and for those close to them. There have been many documented cases of just this happening - the soviet gulags are one from the past and the current government in North Korea is a prime example of what happens when freedom of speech is taken from the public. There are many, many more examples.

No, the constitution should NOT remove this right to make it feel like nothing is wrong. If you feel like something is wrong with the current geopolitical climate, then you should study what has happened in other countries in the past in similar situations and seek out opportunities, such as this one, to spread your concern.

I would HIGHLY recommend reading The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. It's a case study of what happens when constitutions are amended to appease people's feelings, among other findings.

This! Very elegant and thorough explanation of what I tried and probably failed to convey in my comment :)