Is your position that (contrary to Patreon's judgement) this was not an act that put lives at risk, or that she is entitled to use their platform to put lives at risk as a matter of her free speech?
You are perhaps trying to imply that patron is such a large monopoly that there is no viable alternative to which I would respond that patrons monopoly should be addressed directly (treat the cause not the symptom.)
So I'm not sure if Sam Harris is an alt-right taboo character, but I would claim that he is politically biased in what sort of speech rights he defends.
As for Sam Harris, I have not heard him speak one way or the other on the topic. I think your argument sounds like attacking somebody critical to China because they were not critical over your favorite issue.
Running a quick ddg search returns:
No results found for site:samharris.com sex
Which the sex workers would refer to as their job. If we really want to talk about equivalency, one side wants to air their opinion about some matter, and on the other side are a bunch of people who just want to be able to work and get paid today.
People constantly view pornography solely from a consumption perspective. Yes, not being able to get porn on Patreon is a trivial problem for consumers. Not being able to produce porn is a serious problem for the creators.
Frankly, politics is probably a lot more poisonous to Patreon than porn is. Porn is usually quiet, they don't jam it in people's faces. Politics is all about saying controversial things for air time, which is going to cause them never ending headaches.