It's more complicated than that. If my comments on news.ycombinator.com are removed, am I being censored or just asked to leave a publicly accessible private venue.
That is to say, where do free speech zones begin, publicly accessible private areas areas end, and even public right-of-ways end?
It's really a complex question when you delve into nuance, and I think it's worthwhile to do that, even for people who genuinely as deeply pro-free speech.
I think the key is for each platform to have consistent rules that allow users to decide if they want to engage. Reddit is an extreme example, where every sub is allowed to make its own rules. Want to delete any content using the letter 'E'? Go for it!
There's also the shutting down of protests that are loud because they are against one thing being heard. It is hard to determine whose free speech prevail there.
If you read the original arguments in favor of freedom of speech, it's actually quite easy to determine who should prevail. Back in 1644, John Milton argued in favor of allowing bad ideas to be published for the following reason[1]:
> Bad meats will scarce breed good nourishment in the healthiest concoction; but herein the difference is of bad books, that they to a discreet and judicious Reader serve in many respects to discover, to confute, to forewarn, and to illustrate.
Thomas Paine said something similar in his introduction to The Age of Reason[2]:
> You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.
As did John Stuart Mill in On Liberty[3]:
> But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
In short, freedom of speech isn't some deontological argument about the rights of the speaker or writer. It's a consequentialist argument about the rights of people to read or listen. Every time you silence someone, you are denying others the right to read what they want to read or hear what they want to hear. If some protesters are disrupting a talk, they are the ones who are in the wrong, as they are denying others the chance to get the information they want. Many in the audience might not agree with the views expressed, but they want to understand the ideas so they can strengthen arguments for their own views.
If you don't think people are rational or intelligent enough to consume certain ideas safely, well then you might as well get rid of the entire idea of democracy, as you shouldn't trust them to vote either.
I strongly recommend that you revise your post - the 'original' arguments in favour of free speech date back to the 5th century BC.
"Freedom of speech and expression has a long history that predates modern international human rights instruments.[6] It is thought that the ancient Athenian democratic principle of free speech may have emerged in the late 6th or early 5th century BC.[7]
Freedom of speech was vindicated by Erasmus and Milton.[6] Edward Coke claimed freedom of speech as "an ancient custom of Parliament" in the 1590s, and it was affirmed in the Protestation of 1621.[8] England's Bill of Rights 1689 legally established the constitutional right of freedom of speech in Parliament which is still in effect, so-called parliamentary privilege.[9][10]"
> Bad meats will scarce breed good nourishment in the healthiest concoction
Funnily enough, this might not hold true in this current era of media. Bad information (disinformation) cause real harm, see antivaxxers, political radicalism, etc. So this topic is a bit more nuanced with platforms in place that can echo speech based on potentially malicious intent.