Some people think communication mechanisms shouldn't enforce policy. They don't want their phones automatically disconnecting if they talk to a friend about illegal or immoral things. They don't want their TVs shutting off if they watch stuff that's politically unacceptable. So it follows that they don't want their money throwing an exception if they try spending on an transaction too unsavory for Stripe or your bank.
Free speech is for all the stuff you personally detest and personally choose to avoid. In a free country you hold your nose and allow others to engage in it.
If money is speech, then having a kind of money that doesn't pass through policy gates is an essential component of a free society.
Is that something we want though? Why would it be beneficial to let money be used for anything without restrictions? Society has always relied on interdependence, not complete individual freedom. You have to make the case for it.
Respectfully, I disagree that anyone has to make the case for it. That's exactly what freedom is: if society fails to "make the case" for prohibiting something, it defaults to legal. There's no general law requiring people to be good people, or to have common sense, which would be the same as defaulting to illegal. I presume you wouldn't like that, or the surveillance state that would be required to enforce it.
Complete individual freedom as a concept is not a human right. There has never been a society oriented on it and it is not self evident why it would be beneficial for society as a whole to allow an individual to do whatever they like. If you want the benefits of a society, you must reciprocate; otherwise you can go live in the woods by yourself.
You seem to be earnestly and repeatedly attacking this strawman of "complete individual freedom" as antithetical to society, but I'd prefer that you not conflate it with the position I've taken in this discussion.
Happy to continue discussing if you'd like to reply to what I wrote.