That's understandable, so we're back to the point I made at the end of my original comment, which is that while we may accept that the best ideas do not triumph in the short run, it's reasonable to think the cost is worth bearing, and it's also reasonable to think the cost isn't worth bearing. I think there are convincing arguments to be made from both points of view. I think it's also worth bringing other democratic ideals into the picture, such as democratic equality, and questioning why (or why not) freedom of speech should always be selected over those other ideals.
For many, some more balancing between the ideals of speech autonomy and democratic equality is strongly justified - see some regulation in Europe for example.
Free speech and democratic equality go together. Censorship means that there is a select group of powerful people that get to decide what ideas are allowed.
They can go together, but they can also conflict. There's lots of argumentation on how hate speech and pornography can undermine democratic equality for minority groups and women respectively. See the SEP article on freedom of speech[0].
I get what the article is saying, but I feel like they are playing word games. Hate speech laws are not increasing freedom, they are trading off freedom for social cohesion, which all societies do to some extent, just not necessarily with censorship.
For many, some more balancing between the ideals of speech autonomy and democratic equality is strongly justified - see some regulation in Europe for example.