Wouldn't "only censor/condemn hate that's tied to a protected class" be a decent test? Where protected class is defined as the stuff people cannot change about themselves. This test seems quite timeless and orthogonal to the problematic "immoral."
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.
Anyone can stir up outrage against a made up situation.
Which ones?
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.
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!