What I am simply saying is that setting such an expectation (via rules and enforcement) is unnatural for humans.
People are not going to "demand whatever" because they are not nice. You should expect them to demand whatever, even if they are nice.
What I am really trying to say is further explained here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13148978
If you agree that the rule-setting is unnatural under such context (i.e, the context of an online community, dealing with humans and human nature), then you would agree that you should first fix your own expectations.
If you read my comment about the Scott Peck's framework, then you can see that at the first stage, humans are generally nice to each other in any group setting. This is a modern condition: the consequences of civilized societies. But humans also tend to reach the second stage, where they are totally not nice to each other. If you read him directly, you'll get the better idea.
This argument of freedom of speech, or lack there of, is misguided and misplaced in my opinion. It tends to come up at every opportunity (every normalized social network now initially had this argument when they started in the beginning - and we're still having this misplaced argument.
This argument is not about creating a "perfect social circle" with only specific people who have the same view points as you, it's that you can have someone who believes wildly different things than you but they are expected to be nice and treat the invitation into a community with respect, e.g. be nice, rather than do whatever they want. And if they disrespect the invitation, they have consequences.