Free speech as a liberal principle, rather than your plodding legalistic understanding, is in question. It's not a clever argument these days when some tedious drone repeats "free speech is only guaranteed in public" as if individuals should only care about the letter of the law, and not pursue its spirit in their private interactions, too.
All this pertains to something you can't understand as a dull drone: that moral principles exist which give legitimacy to laws, and when principles are broken as a rule in private, then the laws which grow from those principles become a public farce and undermine the whole society and its institutions. It is idiocy to believe what is legally allowed is the only question in life.
There should be no fear of words that have no truth. And no fear of reasonable words that explore unpleasant truths. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928051-500-heard-it-on-the-grapevine-the-secret-society-of-plants/
So if, for example, I point out that even plants show preference to other plants from their own genetic kin groups, that is an exploration of the unpleasant truth that racism is probably a hard-coded natural phenomenon in humans and pretty much all other life on earth, and all the closed-minded censorship in the world won't erase that. When you fight nature, you tend to lose in the long run.
This rainbow-leftist western paradigm is bound to fall, because humans are tribalistic from their earliest history, and censorship can merely delay that being expressed.