I think their point was that free speech is more nuanced than the "You're either for free speech or you're not" dichotomy, and that was just one example. Even

I think their point was that free speech is more nuanced than the "You're either for free speech or you're not" dichotomy, and that was just one example. Even the philosophers behind free speech said that speech should be curtailed when the expression itself causes harm, and they were certainly proponents for free speech.