Freedom of speech only works if it’s mutual. You’re free to say or make whatever work you want, but others are free to criticize what you say or make. This is how free societies tamp down on anti-social beliefs without resorting to forced government censorship and criminal penalties.

Criticism is an essential and necessary component of free speech. Sometimes people really do have abhorrent ideas that need to be dealt with. Either they need to be outlawed or they need to be vehemently opposed by the speech of others.

Consider an example: the folks that try to advocate for pedophile’s rights, folks who literally want to make adult/child sexual relationships legal. There are people who actually want to do that. But that’s also an idea so dangerous that we can’t let it spread around society unchecked. In more restrictive times, they would just hang anyone who proposed such a thing. But we have freedom of speech. It’s perfectly legal to stand on the street corner with a sign encouraging people to legalize child rape. The law won’t prevent you from doing that, but social pressure probably will. If you did that, the cops won’t arrest you, but you could find yourself shunned by all your friends and family, fired by your employer, and made a pariah by your neighbors.

Shame and criticism are how free societies police dangerous speech and ideas. Freedom of speech does not mean that abhorrent ideas go unchecked. It just means that abhorrent ideas have to be defeated in the marketplace of ideas, rather than being squashed by the state. You’re complaining about freedom of speech working exactly how it was designed.