I think we’re currently in an era of unusually large amounts of free speech that elites are starting to get spooked by and defend against. Most people have high, perhaps even growing, tolerance for controversy and offense, but some find it unacceptable, and these people are disproportionately influential.
People always had a lot of free speech, it was just in unmediated human interaction. There was a lively civil society and people had closer relationships with neighbors and extended family and would naturally discuss things. This decentralized communication was a major way ideas and culture were shared. People suggest things like social media have widened the discourse, but ignore the fact that this kind of organic human interaction and community life has steadily declined (see Bowling Alone for more information). To some extent we have traded an unmoderated, uncensored private, in-person discourse for a heavily mediated, censored and monitored discourse.
I think the situation is broadly analogous to advanced nuclear reactors. Both have major strategic military, foreign policy and economic applications.
With high temperature reactors you can efficiently synthesize liquid fuels. Energy security is a major strategic goal of US foreign policy.
The US developed nuclear powered airplanes to a high level. Imagine strategic bombers that could fly continuously for weeks striking targets anywhere on earth without refueling or needing nearby airstrips.
Supersonic nuclear ramjets like Project Pluto were feasible as well.
Yet we considered the technology too dangerous, so we just stopped. And the Soviets also stopped. Humans are more corrigible than you might think.