I think you are not comparing it with the hypothetical situation that would exist if free speech was clamped down upon. You are looking through the lens of "my

I think you are not comparing it with the hypothetical situation that would exist if free speech was clamped down upon. You are looking through the lens of "my side is in charge of the censorship and my side is right". Throughout history and around the world you can find plenty of examples of censorship which had really dire consequences. If your group was at some point to become the one who is censored, how will you be able to argue for free speech? Imagine for example if there was a retaliation from a far left group who blew something up. Then the right would find some tweets and call it "incitement of violence". Then Trump could enact the Insurrection Act, call people domestic terrorists, and censor for public safety reasons. Your argument then would be undoubtedly for "free speech", and you would have to rely on the good nature of the aggressor to provide that to you. Yes this is far-fetched but it's not unusual in other countries and throughout history.