Hurting feelings is unfortunate, but generally not considered to be a reason to suppress other people's speech: we rather choose to suppress our own speech when we think it might hurt other people, and choose to do so freely.

Almost all "contemporary reasonable censorship in functioning liberal democracies" are attempts to prevent people from exploiting the vulnerability of others: speech that causes people to make *patently insane and irrational* medical decisions, for example. Really stupid things like fake cancer cures, and suggestions to drink bleach. And typically, for proponents of censorship, there is a whole spectrum of acceptability as well: the more it's a grey zone, the less the censorship is acceptable. When the censorship clearly and obviously only constrains the actions of malicious actors, and clearly and obviously protects vulnerable people, it's seen as a win. This is always highly contextual, and limited by the extent of scientific knowledge.

A common theme is that censorship to protect those in power (the government) is bad, and censorship to protect those who have the least amount of power is... well, not great (it's definitely always better if it's not needed), but not bad in the same way.

Speech can’t hurt you. Speech can threaten to hurt you, which I already stated I’m against. Other instances of censorship are blatant violations of the principle that force is only justified in response to force. Telling someone to drink bleach is not force. You’re trying to bend definitions to be able to make it seem equivalent to forcing someone to drink bleach, despite no force being involved.