I think the Cambridge dictionary definition is a good starting point, even if it doesn't have a consistent meaning across every facet of political/social discussion:
> public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation
If your speech expresses hate or encourages violence it shouldn't have a platform, no matter if you are a progressive hating on conservatives or any other group of people.
Don't you agree that's at least a good baseline to start curtailing this on mass media platforms? I'd prefer a world where people calling for the death of Jews, black people, conservatives, white people, whatever group it is to not have a way to reach big cohorts of the population.
> So no I don't see any issue, I'd prefer everyone have equal access to free speech, world wide.
And that's where we diverge, dogmatic approaches like this don't leave any room for discussion or arguments, you have a belief which is not too dissimilar to a religious one... In reality allowing absolute free speech including people calling and encouraging the death of others on a massive scale is detrimental to civilisation.
Quick edit: you can have free speech, it doesn't mean it's free from consequences. One of those consequences is that hateful speech might not be allowed in mass media platforms, you can still spread your hate speech person-to-person, that's not a crime in many places.