Everyone has inner censors, unconscious and conscious. An author's conscious self-censor is practical, knowing what not to say if you want what you say to be read. This means focus on core messages and don't repel readers at the outset.
Controlling your tongue has always been wise. Remember those old-fashioned phrases: "least said, soonest mended", and "if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all".
Some would call this muzzling, yet would simultaneously like to silence anyone quoting such Euro-cultural phrases. (Ironic, or what?) But those who really care about free speech like to analyze what frees it. "Softly softly" goes further in enhancing communication than does furious shrieking that offends others.
There's a lot of hysteria about "hate speech" at present, and by accusing others of it ideologues are killing the messenger whenever they don't like a message -- for instance, if it's about a history they deny and for tribal reasons pretend didn't happen, or shouldn't have. Scholarship in universities is more deeply injured by that kind of censorship than social media chatter is.
The knee-jerk "Hate Speech" accusation is disingenuous, but what may be more corrosive, and no one is objecting because it may be their favourite rhetorical tool, is Dislike Speech. How should we calibrate the distinction between "hate" and disapproval?
Love and hate, like and dislike, are emotions, and we can't abolish emotion. Whether expressed or hidden, it's there.
People who hide their hatred often feel free to convey serial dislike (hatred-lite), directing it at values they object to. This Dislike Speech colonizes space from which full-on free expression is driven out -- casting a pall of negativity over communication everywhere.
So what is the result of all this? Speech law can control what people say, but not what they feel. We need to create an atmosphere of honesty plus courtesy, without letting the heavy-handed "tone police" take over. These are speech-suppressors who call honest feelings of dislike which they don't share, "hate".
There have also arisen two classes of hate speech -- the permitted (against white, "settler" and "colonial" people) and non-permitted (against anyone else). If you put someone in any sort of "privileged" category, you get a free pass to hate him or her -- and to say so.
When the targeted group dislikes the tone of what's being said they must reserve the right to say so … even if they hate to be disagreeable.
.
