I met a friend (a long time ago) who said, “I’ll discuss anything with anyone – but if it turns into an argument I walk away.”
Free speech is tolerable if I’m not obliged to listen to it.
Any place where serious work is being done – a classroom; an operating theatre; air traffic control – the speech is expert. The same is true for almost any type of conversation.
“Free speech” is usually limited to meaning that the government cannot decide what speech is permitted. xkcd: Free Speech Related laws include “freedom of association” and “freedom of assembly” – which do not mean that someone should allowed to e.g. follow you into your home and (please forgive me, this is just a for example) spend a lot of your time there telling you what an idiot they think you are.
I think you’ll find something like that in the suttas too: i.e. some politeness and a meeting of minds, and in extreme cases people being excluded from the society of monks.
Incidentally I think that some people might view this as “cultural marxism” which I think might be an allusion to authoritarian control over what’s considered permissible speech, also “groupthink”. And perhaps it does seem like control over the means of production (the production of speech, i.e. the right to publish on a given media platform). Instead though I think it’s democratic and a matter of private property rights (not that democracy and private property and so on are necessarily especially Buddhist).
“No-platforming” is something else again i.e. it is a question of whether I can and should disrupt other people’s meetings (instead of just choosing not to go to those meetings myself). I suppose that a decision to “no-platform” a topic (or people’s meeting and speaking about a topic) is reasonable and virtually necessary if the people are proposing to meet in “my” house. Whether it (“no-platforming”) s appropriate at universities is a matter of some debate, apparently – as is the “for the public good” argument of suppressing (or, conversely, protecting) things like political “hate speech”, “false advertising”, what “balance” is expected of public broadcasters, and so on.