I'm pretty amused by the vast disparity between the soaring rhetoric of free speech types and the actual things they say / Want to say. Very very rarely do I see anyone say anything novel or challenging - mostly they just want to say something people used to say freely in the past (jews control the world, women should be making babies at home, non-whites are stupid, etc etc). Maybe we can disagree on whether it's repugnant or not, but surely we can agree that it's very very boring? For example, did anyone find James Damore's writings to be novel and challenging, or were they just glad that someone was telling women to GTFO like people used to in the 70s?
I think a lot of the anger over free speech is not that people can't freely spout their silly old views, but that people won't respect their silly old views.
I found James Damores writings to be novel as he described disparities in a way that reflected reality. I find the work of Thomas Sowell to be just as novel as he can provide an alternative https://youtube.com/shorts/ZSLy0JsoUp8? Thomas Sowell talking about Birth order, in 5 children families the first born is more likely to be a finalist in an academic contest than the other 4 put together. The first born is more likely to be an Astronaut than the other 4 put together. If you cannot get equal results in a family where everyone has the same parents same household income and same living arrangements, how do you expect to equal results across families? across groups?
Some modern free speech topics include the right to publish 3d printable firearm designs, and the ability to anonymously receive a signed block chain hash which others recognize as some sort of value without being compelled to report that speech on a 1040 form even when you've received no compensation/gain/income for doing so.