Instead of emphasizing that crypto should be protected by freedom of speech, they should acknowledge crypto is a dangerous munition. Therefore it’s protected by the Second Amendment.
The second amendment says the right to bear “arms” will not be abridged. Not firearms.
Shouldn’t that protect crypto?
1. There is a significantly larger body of jurisprudence dedicated to protecting freedom of expression, versus whatever you think the Second Amendment guarantees you.
2. The right to bear arms does not entitle you to specific weapons. That's why you're not allowed to own a nuclear warhead, and why strong encryption was historically on the ITAR munitions list. Arguing that cryptography is a dangerous weapon (it isn't!) is a terrible idea.
Unfortunately, with encryption (and code as speech) - has not been tested at the supreme court as much as most think. It's still an open question to an extent.