I don't think there's a contradiction between supporting freedom of expression and suggesting that such a freedom isn't absolute. There are limits, particularly when the use of that freedom treads on the freedoms of others.

Even US law recognizes this. You're not allowed to invite violence or rioting for example. There are also rules about perjury, liable, and other things that directly limit freedom of expression.

The real questions we should be asking here are where the line is between stating an opinion and inciting violence... And what should ISPs and edge providers be asked/allowed to do?

Because not being forced to provide a platform for the speech of someone else may also be a valid freedom. If I come into your property and say things you don't like, are you allowed to ask me to leave? What if I put up a sign in my front yard? Can I take it down?

IMO, we need neutrality regulations to protect ourselves from the corporations who control everything we see... But such neutrality regulations must necessarily include ISPs as well as edge providers. Otherwise they're worthless.

Not the OP, but I think you're missing the point of the question; the question is about hypocrisy. I think the poster was trying to say "a lot of people who claim that they love free speech would suddenly become really uncomfortable with the idea of a breeding ground for Islamic Extremists".

Well, let us know if you ever arrive at an opinion on that question.