The "anti" arguments are such an interesting illustration of the wider issue at hand - and a fundamental why this board exists. In a nutshell -
Free speech = everyone has a right to speak their mind, but you might not like what you hear; risk of propagating discrimination etc.
Moderated speech = you have the right to be heard as long as you stay within the parameters of permitted speech and ideas, otherwise you will be censored; risk that those in charge set parameters which lead to discrimination based upon the prevailing fashion of views at the time.
In both cases, there are risks - and that's what is so interesting to me; that none of the critics on these threads seem to acknowledge that there is no silver bullet to speech. Whatever "side" you come down in favour of, has a risk attached to it.
In an ideal world, it shouldn't matter too much which "side" you choose, because if there is balance, then the opportunity to challenge views and advance an opposing idea should always come through - and stand or fall on its own merits.
However, right now, the choice is treated as binary and there is no nuance of position at all. The prevailing view of the day is that moderated speech is necessary to "prevent hate", with very little thought given to the ramifications of such a blanket approach. This is evident in the reactions that you see when someone is challenged to an opposing view - you see responses such as "no debate" or requests to "cancel" the individual.
Ideas which do not conform to the fashionable view of the day are treated as dangerous. But the rub is that by imposing such restrictions, this creates an echo-chamber where potentially harmful or misguided ideologies can flourish unchecked and unchallenged. And for those in favour of them, it's an easy win to cry "hate speech" to shut down any opposition, safe in the knowledge that they won't need to defend their position with any kind of robust and impartial data points or evidence base, because even thinking about challenging the prevailing orthodoxy is hateful and harmful and so on, and so on.
The irony is that this approach to moderated speech doesn't stop people from asking questions - it simply drives them underground and into the shadows, in search of places where they can ask questions or express an opposing view. The trouble is that the current view of moderated speech means that this is interpreted as being in favour of anything which stands against the prevailing and dearly-held beliefs. Ergo, by visiting a website which permits free speech, the individual is categorised as "bad" because even just going to such a location MUST mean that they are in favour of everything which happens on that website.
As I say, very interesting to take such a polarised view of the world. I find it fascinating that so many informed people are falling into the trap of sixth-form common room politics; you are either with us or against us.