You were talking about victimhood, and now seem to be revelling in the same.

Freedoms are usually residual.You seem to think that certain freedoms are inviolable and absolute if you agree with those views

Milo for eg has the right to hold his opinions, promote and present them within the law.What he and the rest of us don't have are the  freedom to promote them  where , when, and  in a manner we choose, regardless of others.You see anyone opposing his views as almost heretical, denying him and those who support him his  views,not exercising their rights,  they appear to have no rights because milo's freedom of speech trumps all. It doesn't.

I may  vote for one party that doesn't win. I am denied my choice, but not the right to vote. We don't always get what we want.Thats integral to democracy, as frustrating at times as it might be.

I'm not aware of the individual circumstances you mention, but I'm sure it's all as one sided as you claim and that they have no rights, just violent opposition.

Milo  was proceeded on social media by a female who went along the same path which he then appeared and emulated after her removal. I recall looking at her followers who were largely gun lobby, white nationalists, various supporters with nazi symbols and slogans and KKK, one even had his toddler daughter in a KKK outfit

Ah yes, the 'talking points'. I'm not unsympathetic to some points, but often they are presented in such a way to try to re-write history

Historically the most advantaged have largely been males across a whole range of issues.That they might not win every point doesn't invalidate that, however much spin one tries.

As said on the above freedoms before, I don't think your idea holds much water.One only has to look at Nazi Germany where certain views were tolerated by some in order to promote and further their agenda, thinking they could control what they had enabled. Tens of millions of people died as a result.