That's only necessary if the service is subject to US jurisdiction, directly or indirectly.

No service that's subject to any nation's jurisdiction could be considered truly "censorship-free". Because, you know, said nation could censor it.

This is true, but I'm not so sure I'd want to operate at anything approaching WikiLeaks levels of giving the middle finger to governments. A service that goes by both the letter and spirit of the law in terms of Free Speech, out of the reaches of collusive interference of powerful business people and political activists is something currently lacking, and a good place to start.

I'd have a terms of service not too different from the one Patreon had published at the time of Jack Conte's interview. Such a site would also be "protecting a brand," but the political facet of the brand would be one of enabling the funding of civil and reasoned (though perhaps controversial) discourse. Granted, that's going to be a real can of worms.

Yes, that would be a fine service to have.

Operating solely under US jurisdiction, it would be virtually immune to government censorship. Given strong protection of free speech in the US Constitution. And so it could be as censorship-free as its operators desired, without interference from private third parties.

But all bets are off if other nations have jurisdiction. Consider the pressure that Google is facing to apply "The Right to be Forgotten" to all searches globally. Or pressure from the UK and Australia to censor mention of legal stuff under protective order. Or China, seeking to block coverage of its Muslim "reeducation efforts".