I am now mostly worried about state censorship, which do remove things like the items you list.
Censoring hate speech and people who promote exclusion of minorities? I have not a single example of it being detrimental to a healthy debate.
How would someone in the USSR know that censorship of opponents of Lysenkoism was bad? As far as they were concerned, the people being censored were evil counter-revolutionaries of whom nothing good could come.
Disclaimer: I am Asian and like to point out irony, don't lynch me.
That's not my country and not much of my business but if half of your country is fine using its free speech defending KKK apologists and the other half only meets that with apathy, don't be surprised if some Black Panthers come back to life and use their own free speech fighting back.
And maybe I am less shocked by this affair because in many European cities, wearing a MAGA hat would be seen pretty close as wearing nazi insignia. Under it, lies either someone very racist or someone very confused. And either way probably someone that is not going to have a constructive participation.
So yeah, probably lack of clear rules, lack of due process, I hope that's the takeaway they'll get from it.
Arbitrary enforcement of vague rules is authoritarianism, but you can have clear rules and due process to limit hate speech. It has been done successfully in several places.
He still has won an election in a country that pretends to be democratic, so I'll politely assume he was the choice of the majority.
Anyone can stir up outrage against a made up situation.
Which ones?
As soon as some entity gets a license to start banning speech, you have given bad ideas an advantage over good ones.
This is because a bad memeplex can co-opt the censorship apparatus and kill off any competitors without having to face them in a fair fight.
The criterion you mentioned about hate speech etc is extremely flexible and dependent on a bunch of definitions and interpretations that the censors will be in control of - exactly the kind of thing that the free speech principle protects us from!
The idea of general progress is a fairly recent one. At the times of Galileo trials, many people would have proclaimed with pride that they were following the pure and unalterable criterion of the glorious classics of antiquities.
Notwithstanding that, our modern understanding of the evils of censorship is not just based on a shift in morality, it is based on a reasoning on the nature of debate, science, uncovering of truth and the importance of controversy.
There are places where, if you have a good argument, one can argue about the differences between genders, ethnicities, religions (<- God knows I waste so much time on that subject) or sexual orientation. One is allowed to propose an argumented view at odd with the majority.
Once that is preserved, I do not see what discussion of value is suppressed by suppressing hate speech.
Turtles, all the way down!