Here's an analogy: Is it hypocritical to say "we shouldn't punish people who sell marijuana," but also say "we should punish people who sell heroin?"
Maybe you disagree with the person's preference for what should be punished, but saying "we should punish this behavior but not that behavior" doesn't make a person a hypocrite.
Free speech is free speech though. Either it's free or it's not free. You are arguing for "not free". I am not a fan of that ideology. This isn't shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. This is restricting access to speech (code) simply because the gov doesn't approve of what the code does.
Let's say we, as a nation, through our elected representatives, decide to pass a law against trojans. Then let's say there's a site hosting a trojan repo, open to the public, and they refuse law enforcement's demands to remove access to the code. So the FBI goes through the court and gets a warrant to seize the site and prevents access to the code.
Would you stop the above chain of events at the very first link? Would you say: "We can't ban trojans because it's code, and code is speech, and speech is either free or its not?"
> when platforms kick off the people we don't like
Is not a comment on free speech or not. There are rumors of government sanctions for this specific case, but the typical deplatforming is more like getting kicked out by the bouncer.
