The rough thing about defending free speech is that the speech that needs defense the most is speech almost nobody likes, uttered by people almost nobody likes. Nobody is trying to take down speech everyone agrees with. Any defender of free speech is in the unenviable position of defending people who are making comments that are largely regarded as horrible. By going after the most hated sites and personalities, it allows anti-free-speech activists to chip away at free speech a little bit at a time.
First they outlaw hate speech, then redefine hate speech to cover a wider and wider class of people, until "hate speech" covers "criticism of anybody on our side". That's why anti-constitionalists of every stripe waste so much time redefining known words. That's how rude words and silence can both be violence at the same time; by redefining "violence" to mean "words" and also "not words".