You're trying to blame something you don't like on something else you don't like, but it doesn't fit.

The censorship and punishment you claim as new is plainly and obviously not a recent development, look at how socialist and capitalist ideas have been treated for the last century. Or how American evangelism has treated "dangerous" ideas for even longer than that. https://www.amazon.com/Scandal-Evangelical-Mind-Mark-Noll/dp... , for instance. Never have we been a country full of people willing to admit we're wrong. But we're increasingly a country of people being pandered to by those who want to make a buck telling us we're not actually wrong.

I think you'd more easily make the OPPOSITE argument, that our norms about what is acceptable speech have eroded too far, that we've taken free speech to an unhealthy extreme (such as how our tech platforms will happily amplify the speech of extremists - in fact, they PREFER to do this, because their algorithms have figured out that it gets more ad views).

If it's acceptable for politicians to respond to losing popularity by claiming fraud - as Trump has been doing for months - then you are on the path that leads here. If the resulting violence is not acceptable, but you ALSO don't want to restrict Trump's speech with stronger norms, what do you propose instead?

How many previous presidents would be inciting this sort of thing? How is that the result of less free speech?

Very few people are able to put together a fact- and logic-based argument for why questions of morality like that should be questions of legality. E.g. why it's more like murder or theft or assault and less like lying or adultery. It's perfectly possible to think homosexuality is a sin and not think it should be illegal, and to treat homosexuals as perfectly decent humans who you would interact with in all the same ways you would anyone else. To a Christian, after all, everyone is a sinner.

That significantly undermines those causes to secular listeners. Without being able to do so, it usually sounds simply fear- or dislike- based. Much more like prejudice than like a sound basis for policy.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003EO8ER0 for more, from the inside, on the withdrawal by the American evangelical community from intellectual sphere. The right's "PC" instincts - shout down and kick out the heretics - has crippled their ability to convince those who don't already agree. The left is in danger of getting to the same place, but it's hilariously ironic how evangelicals don't recognize the mote in their own eye on this one.