But the discussion is also not over whether to ban most, all, or even some subreddit's. It's over a fairly targeted removal, though reddit doesn't have a rubric for targeting in the future, which understandably makes some people nervous---people who like a nice, ordered, clear set of rails to ride on. But this is social, and that's not how social works. It still doesn't take much common sense to guess at what's in and what's out.
I mean, what we're basically seeing is this;
Yishan Wong, 2012: "We stand for free speech. This means we are not going to ban distasteful subreddits. We will not ban legal content even if we find it odious or if we personally condemn it."
spez, 2015: Wow, that REALLY didn't work. So we're not going to do THAT anymore. Tune in on Thursday and we'll talk about what we'll do instead.
Does this mean your favorite subreddits might get killed? Possibly. But probably not. And that's likely to be good enough for an awful lot of users. More importantly, "an Internet with a front page that doesn't have a CoonTown is a better internet" is a pretty easy assertion to buy.
I don't feel like your 2015 phrasing captures the essence of the announcement. The announcement says less that free speech didn't work and more that free speech was never a goal.
That's why the contrast between the quotes is so notable:
"Neither Alexis nor I created reddit to be a bastion of free speech, but rather as a place where open and honest discussion can happen"
I guess I just disagree on what we're basically seeing.