You are continuing to conflate anything and everything under the sun.

Look at your question to me:

What if someone had advocated in 1939 for Hitler to be killed? Would you have opposed that? You are advocating for a world in which promoting that idea would have been illegal.

You are saying this nonsense despite the fact that I have again and again distinguished between the notion of a government suppressing speech (which I am completely against) vs. a private platform like Medium suppressing some extreme speech that advocates violence. So the answer to your Hitler question (and here I would also invoke the notion that whoever is the first to bring up Hitler in a discussion automatically loses the argument, precisely because Hitler is always an extreme case that doesn’t help advance any discussion), no I am not advocating for a world in which promoting the idea that Hitler should be killed would be illegal. Illegality involves governments passing laws to ban speech of various sorts. I have made it clear I’m against that. The same reasoning applies to your example of Israel issue.

You also wrote this:

But leaving Medium aside and just talking about principle, I come back to the original point that freedom of speech can have no ‘buts’. You cannot advocate for censoring something you think is wrong, and still imagine that you are defending freedom of speech. That’s plain illogical. It is saying others can say what they like as long as you do not object.

This is exactly what I mean in saying that you are a free speech fundamentalist. The only thing that’s “illogical” here is your view that any restriction on speech means someone is against free speech. This is sort of like saying that any restriction on freedom of action (such as a law criminalizing violence against others) means you’re against a free society. It’s absurd. It’s perfectly fine to say that you’re for free speech but still against someone shouting fire in a crowded theater. And it’s also perfectly fine to say, like I’m saying, that you’re for free speech as a matter of what governments can or can’t do and yet also for giving a private business like Medium the right to restrict what users may employ its tools and technology to say or for giving any private corporation the right to fire an employee who starts saying inappropriate things at work.

It’s also absurd of you to suggest that I’m saying “others can say what they like as long as [I] don’t object.” I object to virtually all identity politics. I object to your extremist view on free speech. I object to things I read all the time. But I’m not calling on anyone to censor any of the articles, etc., in which I read these things. The only thing I’m saying is that Medium has already explicitly taken a position in which it does not permit writers to use its tools to advocate violence, and I think that’s a perfectly okay line for a privately owned and funded publishing platform to draw, and so now I’m asking for Medium Staff to enforce Medium’s policy. It’s that simple. It seems that you’re bending over backwards to avoid understanding that.