What do you mean by free speech is regressing in anglophone countries? That seems like a weird opinion to have? Do you have a particular example?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c15gn0lq7p5o (Misogyny to be treated as extremism by UK government)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_H...
One can easily find examples in all countries. These countries do not have a free speech right in their Constitutions, for example, and no plans to include it.
There are limits to speech, but that is true in every country, including the USA (if you dont believe me, try yelling "i have a bomb" in an american airport and see what happens next)
This was confirmed by how the Charter did nothing to stop the abuses that Canadians endured from 2020 through 2022.
Or if its all section 1, do you feel that any country at all has freedom of speech? I can't think of any country that doesn't have something equivalent to section 1, even if only implicitly. Different countries draw the line somewhat differently, but there are none that dont have some sort of similar limited limits to freedom of speech.
But Quebec, for example, has repeatedly invoked Section 33 over the years, including for legislation limiting expression in non-French languages, among other matters.
Any country that imposes limits on expression simply doesn't have free expression. That would include Canada and the US, and like you say, probably most every other country.
As a Canadian, I can't honestly claim to have constitutionally-protected free expression when I know I could be prosecuted merely for expressing certain ideas.
In the US at least, I'd say for most of the existence of the web, the prevalent idea was that the best way to counter 'bad' speech was more speech.
The concern over 'misinformation' has resulted in a lot of people, whom previously had advocated for unrestricted speech, calling for regulation or removal of section 230.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/02/opinion/misinformation-di...
Like many Zeitgeist trends, it is difficult to measure concretely and objectively, especially if it hasn't been tracked in the past. Especially when people's understanding of what constitutes "free" speech shifts over time.