Glad it's that simple for you. As I outlined in my previous post, the morality of it is far more complicated than that.
The problem is having rules that disproportionately censor another side of politics. I see the left constantly equating anything they disagree with as "hate speech", bullying, harassment, naziism, transphobic. It's pretty clear because it has played out exactly like this: if you put the rules in place for things like this to be censored, one side will eventually make the attempt to label the things they disagree with as those things. And then those things get censored.
That's just wrong, and it shows a lack of confidence in one's political opinion. If your ideas can't win unless you suppress the expression of the other side, maybe your ideas suck. And if people really think that free and open discourse is going to elect Trump again, they need to a) take a look at their ideas and b) run better candidates. It really is that simple.
Edit: I'll add this as well, and it's not necessarily directed at you, but I see a massive entitlement complex from the democratic party. They had a popular candidate in Bernie Sanders who by all metrics would have beaten Trump in 2016. But they pulled every dirty trick in the book to shoehorn the elite's preferred candidate in Hilary Clinton. Trump won because of that, but they still won't take responsibility for it.
Even now, the party is still rigged so that only their preferred establishment candidates can get the nomination, and because it's not working very well they now need to trample over free speech (such as getting the Hunter Biden laptop story removed from Twitter) because they just don't want to learn their lesson.
Why should they be able to muzzle us in order to make their political strategy work? Get better ideas and better candidates and Trump won't win.