There's just no pleasing everyone. You will always have some people on the anti-censorship side that that will cry crocodile tears that they can't shout fire in a crowded theater and yell open threats to kill people. And you will also have on the pro-censorship side the people who can't believe the "horrible" things that you allow to exist on the forum, as if it should be a carefully curated walled garden that never displeases their particular worldview, and you're responsible for that. Both are obviously untenable positions. But as an admin or mod, the challenge is to balance all this.

The problem is that it's an asymmetric relationship. Group A wants to censor. Group B wants everyone to be able to say whatever they want. Sitation 1:
Group A becomes mods and Group B is removed which makes them into troublemakers.
Admins can either ignore, punish Group A or Group B but will likely punish Group B.

Situation 2:
Group B becomes mods and Group A is allowed to participate.
Group A whines repeatedly about what Group B says and mass reports.
Admins can either ignore, punish Group A or B but will likely ignore or start removing mods from Group B.

This is why any organisation that is not explicitedly anti-leftist eventually becomes leftist. Intolerance & Collectivism beats Tolerance & Individualism.

The pyramid of debate is by design anti-leftist and encourages good faith behaviour, which creates a great environment. Most people from Group B will be fine with rules if they are consistently enforced and clear. Group A will intentionally not make the rules clear nor will they enforce them consistently - instead they will shape the rules to target those they don't like and they will use "context" as justification when the rule is applied differently to different people in the exact same situation.