Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>> Freedom of speech isn't the freedom to not be publicly judged about what you say. Thank you for putting it so clearly.
The problem is who's deciding what is and isn't acceptable, RMS has been saying clearly derogatory statements about religion, the basis of most of our shared morality, for decades without a single peep from the virtue crowd. He says a few edgy this about something else and then the pitch forks are out. The problem is that I'm not sure we have much of a shared morality any more.
Software development forces us to be more precise about what our process is. Sales wants to automate their pipeline - oh but what do you mean I have to tell you who to call next? Just call the important ones. We can no longer 'fudge' things.
Agile methodology is causing this problem in many companies. Asking senior management to stack rank their projects is an intensly political issue. Saying the project timelines will vary based on team velocity takes away simplicity of project management.
As software eats the world then more of the world must be upfront and precise about what it means. This is going to lead to a lot of soul searching. The most obvious example is the Trolley problem in autonomous cars - do you program a car to swerve to avoid the child, killing the driver, or save the driver, kill the kid.
This sort of devils own choice will become more rampant as more of the world becomes automatable.
Online speech is just one of these. Now that every pub conversation can be spread to millions of listeners, we need to find ways to agree on what is and is not acceptable.
The problem people are finding is that what was tolerated by people in the 19th hole in Alabama is not acceptable by people listening in Delhi.
The human species is going to have to find ways to get along together. I think that will (eventually) be a good thing.