The courts may not buy it, but I don't think it will be for the reason you say (protecting authors' free speech).
I think the argument against that would be "the authors are free to protect their content, but users can't be forced to use that protection", similar to how someone is allowed to insult you, but you can't be forced to listen to those insults.
In other words, content owners will be free to use whatever DRM mechanism they wish, but it wouldn't be illegal for someone to break it, if they can do that. And that's basically EFF's argument, too.
I think this is similar to how some Courts have said that advertisers are free to show ads up in your face, but you're also totally free to block them. Maybe the EFF can use that argument in Courts as a more "practical" analogy to make the judge understand.
I think the argument against that would be "the authors are free to protect their content, but users can't be forced to use that protection", similar to how someone is allowed to insult you, but you can't be forced to listen to those insults.
In other words, content owners will be free to use whatever DRM mechanism they wish, but it wouldn't be illegal for someone to break it, if they can do that. And that's basically EFF's argument, too.
I think this is similar to how some Courts have said that advertisers are free to show ads up in your face, but you're also totally free to block them. Maybe the EFF can use that argument in Courts as a more "practical" analogy to make the judge understand.