At the time (1794), this was resolved by amending the constitution to make the desired change. If the same unintended wording had gone unnoticed until today, it is very likely that the supreme court would simply decide that the outcome as written was not desirable and throw out the suits.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#/media/File:Map_of_...
.png){kind=link}
In using the Constitution as a living document which can be interpreted by an activist judge, rather than the constitution as written [2], as passed by the states/amendment (originalism), interpreted by precedents from the collection of rulings, and caselaw.
[1] https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-la...
[2] https://www.swindlelaw.com/2017/10/originalism-living-consti...
Free speech, reduction of private property, dissolution of centralized state and wealth redistribution are all very classic bottom left (anarchist) principles for instance.
I would think anyone below the center line vertically (so anarchists to free market libertarians) would support what you call “cancel culture” since is a powerful form of direct action.
No liberal is the other alike, but some would argue that privacy is a prerequisite of freedom. Calling out someone with intent of harm is a violation of their privacy and civil rights. This can have a chilling effect and promote homogeneous thought and expression, which is inconsistent with basic liberal values. Maybe a distinction between anarchism and liberalism is that the former want no regulation at all, while the latter embrace legislation that protect civil and human rights.
Or, are we talking about someone that believes in controlled/regulated speech, a controlled press, speech codes, reductions in private property, Law as a living construct, supports cancel-culture, thinks of the State as the Church, wants massive wealth redistribution, supports violence as a means to change govt, and does not support the constitution?