You're equivocating between two different things, hence my comment on dissonantly categorizing censorship as free speech. A comment on this site a few days ago mentioned the difference between "pro-speech" and "anti-speech" dissent. Someone who disagrees with a repugnant idea but supports free speech might, for example, allow the speaker of the repugnant thought a platform and the opportunity to defend their idea, in the understanding that this affordance will be reciprocated and the truth and repugnance of that idea revealed. Someone who does not, fundamentally, believe in free speech can instead choose to bar the speaker from airing their opinions in any way. Sometimes this involves "speaking," defined broadly. For example, showing up to an event where the speaker is bearing airhorns or calling in bomb threats/pulling the fire alarm. Demanding that platforms remove the speaker. Publishing private information to intimidate others to silence.

The first path supports free speech. The second uses the high regard that free speech has in many minds to attack free speech. It is using "free speech" not as an ideal that allows many ideas to compete in honest search for the truth, but rather as a cudgel to censor heresy. A free speech advocate can absolutely oppose such speech without being inconsistent in their beliefs. One might say, "Free speech is that which allows me to hear anyone's point of view, regardless of how offended or hurt others might be by them." The mob shouting a speaker down deprives the rest of us that right.