Implicit to free speech is the freedom to choose what speech to publish, and what not. Just as freedom of religion also includes the freedom to be an atheist or agnostic, and freedom of association is also freedom of disassociation.
Someone can believe in free speech while choosing to censor their own platform - free speech doesn't mean every venue, platform and publisher must proliferate all speech. And as far as advocacy goes, I didn't see any mention of it on David Duke's Wikipedia page. Although nowadays every racist and anti-semite is a self-taught Constitutional scholar and friend of Voltaire. But advocacy is orthogonal to political belief, and plenty of people advocate free speech as a proxy for their own unspoken views.
Ben Franklin certainly believed in free speech, but he also wouldn't publish content he considered libelous and slanderous in his newspaper, rather he would tell people to take such stories elsewhere.
> Someone can believe in free speech while choosing to censor their own platform
No, someone can __CLAIM__ to believe in free speech, but if they're not allowing it on their own platform then they really don't. There's a reason why the adage "actions speak louder than words" exists.
That's odd, given that literally every platform I've seen proclaimed as pro free-speech moderates content to some degree or another, which implies no platform owner believes in free speech. And given that some editorial decisions must have been made WRT Hustler at some point (they didn't publish literally everything and anything,) I guess Larry Flynt never really believed in free speech either.
