Please explain what you think I’m strawmanning. If you demand that certain topics be banned from discussion, you must explain, as a matter of implementation, who gets to decide what is banned.
> Do you agree that there are objective facts that should be accepted by the society
What, concretely, do you mean by "should be accepted by the society"? To use an extreme but historically common example, does it mean that people should be executed for having different beliefs? You need to be more specific.
> If you do not believe such object facts exist
I do believe the Earth is round. I do believe it’s a fact. I don’t believe people should be banned (or worse) because they think otherwise.
In fact, flat Earth theories are interesting, because they challenge my assumptions and ultimately clarify my understanding of the subject.
This is why freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas is so important: It is the only mechanism by which we can correct our own epistemology and keep it in check, both at the individual and at the societal level!
> there must be some mechanism that raises certain statements into the status of "facts"
Sure. What does this have to do with censorship, though? The topic of discussion was policy, i.e. what is to be imposed on other people.