Well, this one will be hell before I get home.
I do agree with most of it, though this starts in a problematic area. Terminology changes over time, especially in efforts to re-brand something without actually changing it (ie calling comic books graphic novels fooled no one but the people trying to change the name.) Hence I'm more inclined to look at the more general intent of the activity or product that whatever titles it has. Call yourself a sandwich artist all you want, to me you're a counter person at a fast food place.
Hence I find any form of attempts to silence speech troubling, even if capitalistically allowed. You say we value free speech so much, but we don't get an understanding why: specifically that a stronger government would be formed if it couldn't silence dissenters trying to tel them they were screwing up, becoming corrupt, or missing something important. It's the general equivalency to why we (at one point) vilified "yes men" and "brown nosers" as problematic people that only serve to prop up an ego, not get pragmatic things done. Yes running a government is harder that way, but it's better and keeps you honest and stronger in the long run for it.
Sadly we don't take this value into our lives and far FAR too many people are willing to use any tool at their disposal to silence an opinion because they know there will never be a law against it for no other reason than they don't want to hear it. Sticking with the Dixie Chicks (and avoiding current controversies) a lot of people couldn't just let some shitty singers have an opinion that was poorly worded and probably worse thought out and leave it be, they couldn't even just follow their own heart and stop buying their CDs. They had to punish them. They had to quiet them. And that took a mob. What didn't happen, any real attempt to provide a counterargument. Face it, their minds never changed about Bush, and they probable had a lot less respect for people that could only voice disagreement in a mob. I know I did.
Of course, that's much of the problem, it isn't just geeks that internalize. People internalize their beliefs and politics so yes, they get just as mad because Peach or Bayonetta are somehow projections of all women and their place in society, not just overused character designs in their minds. Same goes if something doesn't hold the "correct" political, social, or religious values. The problem is, that's what art exists to do, challenge those views. Forgive the term, but if the current SJW ideals of avoiding offending comments had existed 30 - 50 years ago, we might not have been able to make things saying interracial marriage is okay, being gay is natural, and sex outside of marriage won't condem you to hell. People fought against those, and still do because they didn't want their worldview challenged, and today, not much has changed even with the new worldview more in prominence.
I mean, honestly, did people really think that the two "racist" autobots in Transformers 2 were making some sweeping statement about blacks, or did people not like the reminder that a section of culture still based in said stereotype exists in hip hop radio. Do we as geeks not like TBBT because is isn't funny, or because we don't like being the butt of the joke for things we all know we fall victim to from time to time. Did people really care about the Duck Dynasty guy's anti- gay marriage comments, or were they afraid they might spread if not silenced. We have the right to stand up to speech we don't like, but few possess the common sense to know when to do so, and come off at best crazy, and at worst, like they really hate free speech with it's used against them. No one wants to hear why they shouldn't be offended by something and that they're overreacting and reading too much into something, and if they can't speak, or their speech gets invalidated as being "unsensitive" then at least Jack Thonpsom was honest, whereas the person claiming offense just won't listen or given in until they get their way and what was said is silenced.
And that is censorship.