Free speech only applies to government action. Public disagreement and debate is not censorship. They are, in fact, precisely what free speech is all about. Free speech has never and will never mean "speech free of any consequences, disagreement or rebuttal." Someone thinking about criticism and deciding how they feel it would be the best way to respond is also an act of freedom. Nothing was forced on anyone here.
You fundamentally misunderstand what censorship and free speech are. They are not solely about the government at all. Censorship I will give you some examples.
1) A newspaper does not publish cartoons for fear of offending a religion. That is censorship. (self censorship) The newspaper was not free to speak for fear of retaliation in various forms.
2) A comedian does not tell a joke for fear of offending a religious minority. Again self censorship. The comedian fears his career, his livelihood, the ability to support his family might be placed in jeopardy should he tell the wrong joke.
3) A newspaper editor nixes a story about a local corrupt politician because he fears retribution. Business license delays, extra inspections from city hall, people parking outside his building getting extra tickets from the police.
4) A video game company removes a joke from its game. Again self censorship. The company fears the bad publicity and/or organized boycotts, etc, of falsely being labeled racist, sexist, homotranswimminzphobic. It fears bad publicity would cause financial damage, their employees would suffer, etc.
It is illegal for the government to engage in this behavior (1st amendment) but not for private citizens or corporations to do so. It is, however, the same behavior.