No, actually, koko very loosely defined actual free speech. In a nutshell free speech means that you can say whatever you please so long as you don't venture into what the American courts call "fighting words" (words/images designed to cause harm to another person or words/images that inspire others to cause harm to another person).

Example:

Let's say that I am prejudiced toward piglets (those damn curly tails!). I can express my extreme disdain for the swines to my heart's content. I can talk to people who share my bacon-related woes in the open.

However, I can't encourage people to go and harass or do harm to the hogs. I can't dox Babe and let everyone know the specific pen of residence: that would be encouraging others to harm, harass or make breakfast out of the pig.

*May not actually apply to pigs.

Slang in one place may refer to something rather innocuous and that same term may refer to something entirely different in a different place or dialect. Also some terms can be endearing in one place and quite crude on another.

So, unless one represents an official standard, like a company or a government, censoring content is a bit of a wild goose chase.

Now, that's not to say I want to read crude or hateful content, as I find it a turnoff, but the alternative on balance seems worse. I'd say leave it to the indiv communities and their admins to establish norms rather than a site wide policy.

When I go to reddit or another community, I want civility within the subcommunity I'm interested in, if an alternative community wants to spring up with a free for all approach, so be it.