Both sides have free speech rights and both have outcomes that support that speech...
Free speech has 2 distinct meanings:
1. The legal right to be free from government interference to most speech.
2. The cultural norm to tolerate speech you disagree with in order to foster political inclusion.
You're correct under meaning 1; you're not correct under meaning 2.
Reddit is not a governmental entity, and as a private platform, has every right to decide what speech it will or will not publish.
But we can wish that Reddit as a speech platform would embrace the principles of the First Amendment rather than suppressing all the speech it doesn't like.
That's easy to say when you aren't liable for any damages caused by said speech.
For legal reason that publish should be host.
"Free speech rights" don't apply between two private entities, only between the government and a private entity.
FoS is something we should support in any context because the only speech worth hearing is the stuff you don't like hearing.
If TD is repeatedly violating freedom of speech principles what exactly is your recourse to ensure they comply and adhere to freedom of speech? If we accept that TD has the right to ban users it doesn't like, then we accept that Reddit has the right to ban subreddits it doesn't like.
What's an example that supports this? I can only think of examples that indicate the opposite.
This second version is assumed to exist a priori from any state/law similarly to how international human right conventions Recognize human rights rather than Create them.
If you have a difficult time saying horrible things about Hillary Clinton without attacking her gender, you might actually be sexist. Think about it. How do you really feel about women?
It is unclear for me where this comes from? Did GP update their post after you replied or did you reply to something GP didn't say or even imply?