Further, as far as I can tell, this all centers around things she did in college and I'm of the opinion that people shouldn't be faulted for their college antics. Ibram X. Kendi wrote that white people were literally aliens and Nikole Hannah-Jones wrote that "the white race ... is the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world" and "the descendants of these savage people ... continue to be bloodsuckers in our communities". The had abhorrent views, and now they're gainfully propagating moderately improved views on an international stage. Perhaps she (like many on this forum and elsewhere in the debate) was still trying to understand the difference between "cancellation" and "criticism"?
In any case, to the extent that she participated in any cancellation, she was wrong to do so.
In Bari's case, she can be simultaneously in favor of free speech but not want to work someplace where she is incessantly criticized or where she lends her credibility to an institution that is ultimately morally corrupt. There's no contradiction here. Specifically, I don't see anything that supports "she wants her detractors silenced by the law". She asks for company policy with respect to social media harassment to apply to those who harass her as it applies to other cases in which she's not the subject of the harassment. This seems like a pretty reasonable policy and one which isn't especially at odds with free speech ideals. I grant that there's a fine line between "harassing" and "criticizing with appropriate respect", and while I think axe emojis and consistent references to her Jewish identity make this pretty clearly a case of harassment, my opinion doesn't matter--what matters is whether the NYT's own standard for harassment. For example, would the NYT consider it harassment if the target were a black progressive instead of a Jewish liberal?