I respect your point about censorship when applied to the realm of civil disagreement. This conversation unfortunately breaks down because of our dissonance in regards to the civility and rationale of Gamergate.
So maybe you should reflect on the conditions that have duped you into taking such a simplistic position.
If you want to distance yourself from the documented invasion into the lives and the distinct harassment of women in the industry, my humble suggestion is to pick a new angle from which to fight. How about Doritogate?
I fear we have gotten quite off-topic.
We saw this from the likes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot ... to Anti-Gamer-Gate. In this context claims of harassment are a smokescreen that are being used to cover up the exposed corruption. They appeal to the damsel-in-distress narrative that so many men so easily fall for. It's quite an effective strategy, and some guys like John Flynt (aka Brianna Wu) make quite a good living of it seemingly. Maybe you should also try it when your software isn't good: wear girls clothes, send yourself some threatening emails and whine about harassment on TV ... worth quite a stack of paper I hear.
BTW Wikipedia is not a credible source.
That said, the anti-corruption movement is also real. And it is a fact the gg-blocklist does block well behaved non-harassers based on political views.
You both want good things. Why can't you just both agree on ending harassment and be anti-corruption? Those are really not incompatible positions, if you are will willing to look past the us-vs-them tribe mentality.