Morality is subjective, which is why the freedom of speech is (almost entirely) absolute (except in cases of causing immediate harm, such as yelling fire in a crowded theater when fire doesn't exist).
I live in the United States, and therefore not subject to such infringements on my rights. While well intentioned (the road to hell is paved with good intentions, as the cliche goes), it's a slippery slope towards tyranny when those in power or the majority are deciding what speech is undesirable, and prosecuting you for it (look to Russia and their persecution of the LGBT; all it takes is public opinion to swing for you to be disenfranchised as a citizen when you decide what speech to regulate).
Europe sometimes makes me chuckle; Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted during the French Revolution in 1789, specifically affirmed freedom of speech as an inalienable right. But hate speech is icky, so not so inalienable!
The social contract and public policy is a balance. I do not endorse hate speech, but I am vehemently against restricting speech. Undesirable speech is the cost of a free society.
Yelling "pedophiles in the pizzeria" (for example) hasn't yet caused a mass causality event, but it's coming. Yelling "funded by George Soros" didn't cause one because the bomber was incompetent, but it was close.
The gray band here is narrow enough to see across.
This would be the task of someone who was kicked off a platform and believes it violates the Constitution. I haven't had it happen, so I have no standing to pursue such a case.