free speech for bigots vs free speech for minorities.

I'm sorry, but that's just not how it works. Part of free speech is accepting the fact that other people with dissenting/disagreeable opinions will also be able to have a voice.

Do I like the stormfronters on coontown? No. Do I like the radfem harassment from places like SRS? No. Do I think either of them deserve to be censored/deleted? Absolutely not. At the end of the day, regardless of how stupid or wrong their statements or viewpoints may be, they are people. I guess this may be idealism, but I don't think anyone should be robbed of their voice.

Yet, that action of allowing such speech means that most minorities aren't going to want to go there

This logic doesn't pan out. On the flip side, wouldn't the fact that minorities post on the community mean that stormfronters would not sign up? Clearly this is not the case, as looking at reddit, there is an incredibly wide variety of communities, many in clear conflict of the other. /r/MRA existing doesn't stop /r/TwoX from existing, and vice versa.

speech for people to say hateful things or the speech from minorities

You say this again here, but I just can't wrap my head around where exactly this mentality is coming from. The speech of minorities is worth no more or less than anyone else's. By that logic, because Caucasians are technically a minority in the world, does the word of the Caucasian hold more weight, and people of color should not be allowed to criticize them?

Take universities and academic journals, for example.

It's funny you should mention these, because that's exactly what happens. If I were to ask you to describe the typical political spectrum of the average college student, and their viewpoints, I think we can both agree that the stereotype adheres to them quite well. Left leaning, probably close to the idea of what a stereotypical "Social Justice Warrior" (you know my meaning on this) would be. What do you think would happen if someone of an opposite ideology attempted to debate something?

Here's an example:

It's strange you mention academia and then also try to state that they are somehow also apply this logic. Do you so quickly forget what comes of the stifling of opinion and ideas in academia? There was an entire period of history where the views of anything that contradicted the norm at the time (the church in particular), was viewed as blasphemy and it was indeed a literal echo chamber of opinions.

At it's core, this issue has nothing to do with bigots, misogyny, misandry, racism, sexism, whatever. It has to do with instead of taking the opportunity to interact with your fellow man, and use the opportunity to engage them and provoke true thought provoking discussion, you silence them. What good will ever come of silencing someone? I think it's much more fruitful to engage the racist/sexist/misogynist/misandrist/bigot, to talk and reason with them. Only then will you come to an understanding and have an opportunity to change their perspective.