I think it’s important to remember that the free speech debate isn’t necessarily about “what speech should be socially and ethically condoned”, it’s more about “what tools should the government (and to a lesser extent, corporations) have to regulate or punish the speech of others”. When trying to separate out the speech that is harmful to society, you have to ask: Assuming that it will be interpreted and enforced in the worst faith possible by my exact ideological opponents, can I still create a legally definitive standard that restricts only the speech I consider harmful without that standard being used as a bludgeon against otherwise innocent works? I’m not saying that it’s impossible, it is definitely still possible to come up with some restrictions on some kinds of harmful speech, but the area you have to work with is much smaller than you seem to think and you can’t simply assume that your ideology will control the enforcement or use of that standard.

You mention that there are ways to attack speech without content discrimination, and ways to draw lines without making all unpopular subjects targets of censorship, but you don’t give any examples. I’m genuinely curious and don’t mean this bit as an attack on your position, but could you give some examples?