It's odd how situational people are about when free speech requires someone to be given a platform and when it doesn't. There's an almost impressive 180 on free speech rolled up in this philosophy, and it's a philosophy that I'm unfortunately seeing online more and more nowadays.

The idea is that the government has the power to censor private institutions and public schools as it sees fit, but private companies have no right to censor or exercise their own freedom of association. Actively harassing people online is free speech that people should just ignore, but trans people merely existing publicly and openly in public spaces is dangerous propaganda that the government needs to put a stop to -- merely being open about their own existence is crossing the line. It's a philosophy that's happy to censor identity, and loathe to censor actions. It's a philosophy that sees government involvement in speech as fine, and private/social involvement in speech as an existential threat to the 1st Amendment.

Free speech is used as the justification for these policies and arguments, but it's only a justification. The actual goal is the reinforcement of existing social norms and hierarchies, and free speech is applied situationally in order to further that goal.

In general, be suspicious of anyone who claims to be a free speech advocate who has this kind of backwards view of the 1st Amendment. The point of the 1st Amendment isn't to make it easier for the government to censor, and it isn't to make it harder for private institutions to moderate their own spaces. That's not to say that we can't talk about the free speech implications of moderation decisions -- but if you're excusing government censorship while criticizing companies, I immediately get real suspicious.