As far as I understand the reddit situation, a major problem is that advertisers have a strong fear of screenshots of their product next to a random badthinking redditor's screed becoming subject of some five minute hate on twitter or facebook.

If I were a US citizen, I'd be less enthusiastic than you seem to be about this situation, irrespective of coincidental alignment of (current) outcomes with personal moral sensibilities.

I'd want to look very hard at the fact that the control loop for "what you can't say" on the ad-driven internet runs through corporate ad departments and random twitter mobs.

Much as I agree that advertising as an industry needs to die (and I recommend Patreon style funding to people wanting to be immune to advertisers), in practise putting the advertisers in an armlock has often been the only way to persuade overly idealistic free-speechers to put the brakes on stalking and doxxing, child porn and the suchlike.

If you want to say something, say it. Don't say the opposite in a sarcastic tone.

So you're in favour of all forms of free speech except sarcasm?

Edit: ok, evidently jokes aren't a popular mode of speech either.

This isn't about surpressing free speech. It's about basic communication and debate.

Sarcasm used to be a effective and totally valid way to make a point, -I mean it was even part of basic reading/writing education when I grew up 20 years ago.

Of course you can easily overdo it but I think banning sarcasm has a significant downside and we should rather teach people to use it correctly.

Didn't downvote (ok, even gave you an upvote while commenting) but I think you misinterpreted the situation I/we reacted to.

Parent didn't censor the offensive post. Free speech means having the right to criticize others.

This isn't Reddit. Make a succinct point, not a straw man.

That word doesn't mean what you think it means.