I believe we both have reasonable arguments from our paradigm, it is just the paradigms have conflicting definitions.
When people who share camp with me say "Open" or "Freedom" we mean Free Speech AND Free Beer.
Where the disagreement happens is on Free Speech:
There are many people/governments that define Free Speech as "Free Speech as long as someone does not shout 'fire' in a crowded room." This is the spirit of (a)GPL in restricting people.
The other group defines Free Speech and/or "Freedom" as "without restriction". Not because they want people to yell "fire" but because they attribute restriction/regulation as the mechanism towards monopoly & centralization. Not that regulation/restriction on its own is bad (every individual ought exercise self-discipline), but it is particularly dangerous once monopoly & centralization emerges because it produces totalitarian or fascist structures.
To counter my own view, many people in the camp opposite of me, have expressed same end-goal concerns "we want to restrict hate speech so fascism doesn't rise". I think it is admirable we have shared-goals (stopping totalitarianism), but for reasons you probably don't share, I think it is more effective to stop fascism by removing the ability for fascists to enforce rules/regulation/restrictions on individuals, even if that comes at the cost or risk of someone yelling "fire".
Why? (I don't assume anyone cares about my view, so don't feel obligated to read) Because I have higher optimism that humans will eventually overcome their individual immaturity (shouting "pen--" in a crowd), especially through incentive design, than in humans overcoming their tendency towards abuse of power (or even worse, most people who "abuse" power don't think they are abusing it, they have a conviction that the use of power is for some greater good). Wielding power is often the end game of any incentive structure, but yelling "fire" or "p--is" often ruins your reputation/power so naturally is disincentivized over time (or where it matters most).