Particularly in America, a lot of people interpret freedom of speech to include allowing hate speech.
These people would say that you can't be a bastion of free speech and ban hate speech at the same time, so if Reddit has banned hate speech it means they're not a bastion of free speech.
IMHO there's nothing wrong with /not/ being a bastion of free speech, though. Who'd want to be, given what it entails?
It's because "hate speech" must be defined by someone, and who is(/are) that someone(s)?
Hate speech is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. (see R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Snyder v. Phelps)
If you disagree with that premise, you're free to lobby for a an amendment.
If you're banning hate speech, you're not a bastion of free speech in the United States of America.
I think if a company is more restrictive than the country you're incorporated in (reddit, inc. is a Delaware corporation), "not a bastion of free speech" is a fair description.
Totally agree with you that there's nothing wrong with being restrictive (this is HN, after all, also not a bastion of free speech).
These people would say that you can't be a bastion of free speech and ban hate speech at the same time, so if Reddit has banned hate speech it means they're not a bastion of free speech.
IMHO there's nothing wrong with /not/ being a bastion of free speech, though. Who'd want to be, given what it entails?