Makes me wonder how many people like GPL and free software. One of the core tenants of free software is the ability to do anything with it (freedom 0). This includes being able to do evil.
You seem to misunderstand that reason. It is because qualifying the evil is best done out of the license, and not because qualifying the evil is universally bad.
It should be noted that the Debian Free Software Guidelines words that decision as "no discrimination" and this choice is not light---it is there to prevent prejudicial behaviors by licenses. And that doesn't mean that the society should not judge them either (otherwise it won't function at all). The DFSG doesn't prevent you from doing evil with a free software and face the postjudicial consequence at all.
> [...] it applies to speech as much as it does to software.
And that's where your comparison is wrong. Not because the freedom of speech is not absolute (this is a tough topic by itself) but because 8chan was blamed because it didn't even acknowledge the post-judgement.
> It is because qualifying the evil is best done out of the license
The example in case does not qualify what counts as evil, only that it bans evil. It thus leaves it to others, outside of the license, to qualify evil when they determine how the license applies. Thus the license the FSF rejects does what you claim should be done.
>The DFSG doesn't prevent you from doing evil with a free software and face the postjudicial consequence at all.
It does suggest not using licenses that would increase the legal consequences of doing such evil.
>because 8chan was blamed because it didn't even acknowledge the post-judgement.
Does encryption acknowledge the post-judgment of all the evil it enables?
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
The original JSON license is even deemed not free because it limits the ability to use it for Evil.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#JSON
There is a reason for this decision and it applies to speech as much as it does to software.