Freedom speech in a library context, may mean providing access to mein kampf but putting it in a hate speech section. Just like when sharing a security vulnerability, there is a world for responsible disclosure. Responsible disclosure is censorship to a purist of free speech

If however this question relates to recent events.

If you're concerned with platform censoring, then I would say the concern is misplaced. There needs to be a new definition for information monopolies. If any one platform decides to censor you, and you can realistically interpret that as a freedom of speech violation, then that is actually an antitrust problem. You can look at how this plays out in federated networks. The gap social network, try to join the activity pub federated Network. Each individual community in activity pub was able to make their own decision as to whether they had to listen to what gab was saying. Gab was effectively silenced, but not by the hand of a dictator. Each individual community had their own rules, gab decided it wasn't worth continuing to participate in activity pub because they weren't gaining traction. This reflects how free speech behaves in auditorium. Free speech does not guarantee free audience

The reason that freedom of speech is used to protect you from your government, is because your government is guaranteed several monopolies over your life in some very consequential ways.

As a third answer, freedom of speech as a context has not been tested at scales like this before. There are some very interesting ethical questions to be studied and grappled with. A downside to using politically correct terms, is that it's very often nothing is actually being said. However, when you deviate from politically correct terms, the opportunity for your words to be misinterpreted significantly increase. The use of things like dog whistles, even if unintentional have an effect on the population. So let's say that you are giving a typical speech but use words that are not precise and not politically correct. If 001% of your audience interprets your words as the most radical interpretation, this used to mean nothing. Megaphones weren't large enough to reach a radicalized population. Those population members had no coordination infrastructure that They could organize along. And as I said, none of this has to have been intentional by the speaker. Because of scale ethics and network effects the resulting consequences of the words you use scale (Little C) exponentially with your audience size, when edges are provided for free