I think it is a very useful to distinguish between the harm caused by the repression of speech (or the compulsion of speech) when done by the government as opposed to when it is done by the individual. This is a distinction rarely acknowledged by the left because the left wants to control all individual behavior through the government and so it never will acknowledge either that the government has no business regulating speech or that such regulation when done by the government is worse than when done by a private entity.
Nathan Bedford's Maxim, all politics in America is not local but ultimately racial comes into play here. The left believes that racial discrimination is so heinous that it is not just proper but morally required to deploy government to stop individuals from discriminating. In Europe, where I live, it is advanced beyond this point and it has become the job of government to enforce civility in speech which might offend some group. A conservative naturally reacts in horror, believing that the government has far more capacity and far more leverage to do evil than an individual.
So if were talking about principle vs. practicality, I think a great problem is we have lost sight of the principal of individual sovereignty and collective tyranny.
We are aligned here - that a great problem is we have lost sight of the principle of individual sovereignty and collective tyranny. The danger is that collective tyranny can be imposed to a greater degree and to the extent that it can be practically and quickly implemented...from local licensing to controlling the internet.
The existence of individual freedom requires a moral people. Government enforcement of civility is an indicator of the loss of freedom - i.e a loss of morality. I am interested to learn more about the Europe situation, as it is happening in the US as well in a variety of ways - but maybe not as advanced to date as Europe.