[MarkusQ]

That's...wrong?

Recently (in the last few years), I've seen it used 1) to argue against misinformation bans (specifically anti-vax nonsense), 2) to argue in favor of allowing equal time to political opponents, 3) as a defense of permitting Palestinian/pro-Hamas protests and publicly fact-checking their claims, rather than banning them, and I'm sure there have been others. The third case would support your "hate speech" contention, but the other two were in the spirit of the article.

People who value a free market of ideas trot this out a lot. You also here things like "Free speech only has value when you extend it to those you disagree with" or "Free speech means people have a right to tell you things you don't want to hear."

Perhaps you only notice when it's applied to things you consider hate speech, or assume it (since I didn't see anything in the article about it)?