Being against harassment doesn't make you any less a believer in free speech.
The validity if your statement depends heavily on what's your personal definition of free speech, and where you draw the line regarding acceptable censorship and persecution from the state.
Considering the spectrum of free speech includes absolutists who argue speech can only be free if it's free from any consequences from the state, there's a huge grey zone on where to draw the line.
Bullies stop when you punch them in the nose.
Offering people "content filtering controls" might work in a small population where bullies could get ignored completely after a short time, but IME it doesn't even work then. What does work is when the community stops them cold by banning them.
But not everyone is a bully, so the system needs to be more nuanced than that, with warnings and lesser punishments before the final ban.
Personal filters are a good thing because it allows people to go beyond the rules and filter out things that bother them personally, and even to stop the bullying personally while the community works out that the bully will not stop. But it's the first step, not the last.
Blocking words is useless, they will use fake words.
Block on hash is useless, they will distort the video to generate new hash.
there's no personal definition imho - free speech is the allowance of the citizens to say anything, regardless of whether the state wants it heard or not.
Free speech isn't the idea that other people must have the opportunity to hear one's speech.
So sending emails or photos to people (ostensibly to harass) doesn't constitute free speech.
“IMHO” stands for “in my humble opinion”. I think you might be conflicted on this one.