Freedom of speech only technically includes freedom from governmentally-imposed censorship, but I've always seen there as being a broader implicit principle to it - namely, the codification of the idea that the mere offensiveness of an idea does not, in and of itself, constitute a form of harm. I despise racists, and xenophobes, and sexists, but the mere idea that they have their own mostly segregated (and even more so, now) space on the same website doesn't really bother me - indeed, I think there's a form of strength in saying that an idea, itself, cannot harm, as long as you're also taking corresponding action to fight the real-world ill effects of those ideas through whatever means you have to contribute. This seems to me especially important in the contemporary world, considering that private corporations fulfill a number of basically public functions, and the highest public function a communication- and discussion-facilitating company like Reddit can aim to fulfill is to maximize the democratization of access to non-violent, non-harassing speech. The Chimpire is a vile, vile place, but it exists because of something wrong in society and in individuals that give such a thing appeal in the first place. You only bolster their zeal and appeal when you make martyrs out of them, and you entomb in the margins those few better souls that might escape that life of being the world's stink by minimizing the number of chances for them to interact with someone that might start them on the path to changing their mind.
Reddit is basically a failed experiment, for the upvote/downvote system will always cause it to gravitate to the lowest common denominator, but making access to hateful communities more difficult, and refusing to make revenue from them, seems to me a decent compromise, all things considered.
