I think this misunderstands free speech in principle rather than as interpreted by law or colloquially.

Classical liberal philosophers, like Locke, Mill, and Dewey, understood that deliberation required broad perspectives to handle sufficiently. Understanding and solving problems required a debate about their nature and their solutions for society to choose well. Free speech was instrumental in solving problems in principle.

But a modern understanding of it is basically license. It’s like calling freedom both the opportunity to live your life on your terms and shoot black people on your doorstep because you’re afraid of them. And then someone comes along and asks, “Do you think people should the freedom to defend themselves from intruders?”

Free speech, similarly, nowadays is just conflated with pure lies and obfuscation. It’s about creating unreal problems and redirecting social energy into some ineffective bullshit.

Thus, it’s not a contradiction to say that Americans support free speech and that some people need to have their platform taken away. Productive free speech would be improved by a reduction in unproductive and destructive speech done freely.