I think we need new terminology to speak of those who invoke a low-level understanding of free speech when it comes to quite frankly poor moderation decisions.

At a surface level, the way I've seen a lot of people talk about it only serves to reinforce the perspective that moderation = censorship.

To call them 'free speech defenders' and so on even when using quotation marks feels like playing this on their terms and it doesn't even hint at why the moderation actions occur in the first place, or why moderation (especially for the benefit of vulnerable or marginalised groups) is worthwhile and always necessary in some form.
I don't really have any answers, but I definitely encourage people to experiment.

Some observations:

- The word 'Nazi' has lost it's real meaning in wider internet discourse and culture. It is not an effective thing to say or use, even if it is totally accurate. Don't bother, it just switches people off.

- Shaming does not work to someone who does have any understanding of what they are doing and from a position that is not authoritative. If anything, you're only going to make them feel better about their decision.

- Getting angry at the person is only going to push people away. Appeal to basic empathy and focus on the negative effects of moderation decisions on yourself and people close to you.

- Using 'free speech' is pointless. Most people in our societies have been led to believe a very cartoonish version of freedom by our respective nations/societies.

- Being right isn't everything in certain contexts. We have to deliver with tact, and a degree of humour and fun when appropriate.

(shit, I was supposed to say 'not have any understanding of what they are doing' when it came to the shaming segment)