By your definition anybody who does't open their home to any travelling neonazi preaching their ideology is "censoring" said neonazis.

The impression that passes is that your black & white absolutist definition of "censorship" is just you just trying to weaponize the word for your own political ends rather than having given it genuine thought.

It's not a "slippery slope" because it's not the kind of situation were a little bit of limitation leads innevitably to total limitation: there is an actual point somewhere in the middle where somebody's right to speech stops and somebody else's right to not be drowned in the shouts of those they consider abhorrent starts.

No rights are unbound in a society because there are other people who want different things, often contraditory, who have rights too, and its mathematically impossible for everybodys rights to be unbounded, and that applies to the right of Speech as much as it applies to, for example the right of not being insulted or the right to Silence.

Those who are genuinelly trying to be fair about all this are not looking at the Right To Free Speech as an absolute right because any right being an absolute would trample on everybody else's different but related rights - a situation of maximum unfairness against everybody else - what they're looking at is were that right ends and other people's rights start, or in other words the right ballance between everybody's rights.

Personally, whilst I think Lemmy users should be allowed to, themselves, totally block instances rather than it being delegated to unelected server admins (and yeah, I know that sufficiently technically expert users can set-up their own instances - and I am one such user - but that's not scalable and discriminates against most people, who have no such expertise), I see this as temporarily acceptable action given the current status of the code since anybody who wants to hear that speech can make an alt on that server.