If we’re talking about actual govt censorship, it should be limited to rare situations where serious harm would result. It’s fine to censor details of an active military operation. It’s fine to prevent the release of the name of a whistleblower. Stuff like that.
But otherwise I am generally a free speech absolutist. Not only should we not have govt censorship, but PRIVATE censorship isn’t any better. Trying to take people jobs away because they said something offensive isn’t just overreacting, but it’s also COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. JS Mill made great points that we should let the heretic speak (he was writing in the 1800s so of course it was about religion) because, first, he might be right. But also, by preventing him from speaking, we may fall out of practice of how to think and reason responses to incorrect thinking. Engaging in the debate helps us, even when the other person’s statement is wrong because it clarifies our thinking.
To that, I would add that it also acts as a pressure release. A bigot who keeps silent because he fears consequences will see his resentment build to an eventual explosion. Better to let him talk, and then we can talk back to him and show him that he is wrong without destroying his life.