You heard his speech, millions heard his speech. In what way was he censored?
2) Virtually no one actually read his essay in its entirety, including the media figures and bloggers who commented on it incessantly. His actual message and claims were completely ignored or outright twisted to fit a specific narrative. The fact that you had to go all the way to places like the Joe Rogan podcast to listen to him actually explain his thoughts without being editorialized was insane.
3) He lost his job as a direct result.
However, it was not well written nor was it particularly well reasoned. While there were some potentially good ideas buried it it, they were buried under poorly understood and debunked science and statements that were easily misunderstood.
I think critical debunking of where he went wrong and charitable interpretation of some of the things he may have gotten right would have been far more effective.
Unfortunately it was pulled into the morass that is partisanship in US these days. (I personally harbor a suspicion that this was deliberate and that he fully intended to get himself fired given the way that it and numerous other personal details of googlers got leaked in the lead up to his firing).
I didn't read his essay or follow this case at all, but from Wikipedia it seems he was arguing that biological differences between the sexes are a driving factor for the lack of women programmers at Google. That's a position that's solidly backed by the science.
I mean, come on, if it was a paper in any other field, even economy, people here at HN would have either ignored him or called him out.
Anyway he was dumb and should not have been fired (unless this essay looked like his work at Google).