Censorship is only acceptable against CP (not drawn shit, no victim = no crime) or bestiality porn (spare me the 'woof'/'he consented' argument), or when not applying it would give away the positions or movements of soldiers or sekrit agents or something like that. In all other cases, including those you mention, all that does is make the censored material forbidden and tantalizing, driving a wedge between citizen and state (or user and Twatter or whatever) and if done enough, often enough or severely enough, creating a group of people who have at least some vested interest in seeing their leaders or system of governance replaced with something that interferes less needlessly in their lives. Or who will Exodus to a new Chan or Voat or wherever.
As with other harmless shit, censoring media only serves to push otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminality, and respect for the law tends to go down the shitter when one has to break the law to read a book or play a video game. Also illegal things can't be taxed.
Also, if something is b& for falling into a specific category (pornography, pro-[ideology I dislike], blasphemy, soggy knees, joos, whatever), every part of the system from cranks off their meds to hotpocket-happy mods to pigs to Porky will use it to hotpocket everything they dislike, that makes them look bad, or that hurts their profitz.
The violent media argument's full of shit, if somebody's unbalanced or easily-led enough to take a human life over a song or a book or a film, that person needs psychiatric help and would probably find some other justification for murdering people or otherwise acting like a nut. It was true when Flappers and later Elvis were going to be the moral downfall of our youth because Negro music, it was true when the Manson Family accidentally took the Holla Forums pill instead of acid one day and torturously misinterpreted a Beatles song to mean muh raec war and See Kids That's What Your Free Love and Rock n Roll Lead To Now Go Cut Your Hair And Get a Job, it was true when parents tried to sue Ozzy and Priest over muh subliminal messages because they were so horrible to their kids that their kids offed themselves listening to their music, when NWA was said to be causing and glamourizing gun and gang violence and not just shining a light on a fucked-up ugly reality the artists grew up in, it was true when playing Doom and Quake and listening to Marilyn Manson (and iirc according to TIME, Pokemon) obviously meant that you'd shoot up your school instead of ayy blaze it lmao on 4/20, and it's still true in le current year when wanting a finished game with tits and without DLC and Orwellian DRM means I'm a violent potential rapist 300 lb. permavirgin neckbeard who hates women and has a king's ransom in hotpockets, cheese pizza, bodypillows and pissjugs stashed in his parents' basement.
That said, unless/until those reactions are violent or otherwise infringe on the speaker's rights, people saying unpopular or controversial things shouldn't be insulated from the consequences of their actions (being ignored, insulted, shouted down or kicked off of others' private/personal property, etc.). As for whether they should be fired for it, I think that should only be a possibility either if the person expressing the unpopular opinion is a spokesperson for a group that doesn't agree with what the person said, like from an official company Twatter account or sperging out at customers while still on the clock.
thumbnail looks like a toilet full of diarrhea