It can.

At least recognize the best examples of what you disagree with. Don't use straw men. Address how harassment results in suppression of the most silenced voices. Look at how shouting people down has traditionally been used (and is currently being used) by many groups to silence vulnerable people. Address what has happened to the most obvious "free speech" platforms. Don't respond with weak whataboutism that casts those with power and advantage as the victims.

If one wants to be simplistic about free speech (and some Musk-leaning arguments are), it is just as logical to look at the platform before and after him and conclude he hates free speech. His love or hate of free speech is very possibly not the driving factor in what he's doing; but faulty, ill-intentioned arguments (matching those that say he loves free speech) could conclude he's anti-freedom by looking at the voices that have been greatly diminished as an openly predictable result of his actions.

Free speech is complex. Simplistic, absolutist approaches by nature do not cut it.

The closest a simplistic, absolutist statement can come to cutting it might be "Never has an competent person argued that all speech (like intentionally, falsely yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater) is conceptually protected by the spirit of free speech or should be legally protected by free speech laws."

Even if giving Musk the benefit of doubt he clearly does not qualify for, one would at least acknowledge good people can think he's closer to allowing 'Fire!' than he should be. The argument plainly has grounds. Maybe one wouldn't agree, but one would be correct to acknowledge it.

This is more "fail to see" than it is "cannot be made."