I believe the principle of charity is enshrined in the HN guidelines. There's no need to assume ill intent here, either on my part or on the part of many others who believe in the bedrock, foundational principle of free speech. I don't see how you could make the connection that being outraged that China has managed to censor search results nearly globally on one of the top-three search engines on the day of the anniversary of the event being censored could be interpreted as arguing for only 'speech I agree with'.
You must have a remarkably selective definition of free speech then. Stuff gets flagged all the time, and users are suppressed via opaque and obfuscated methods.
To be clear, I'm not saying that moderation is a bad thing. But increasingly I notice that people use the term "free speech" to simply mean "speech I agree with".