I'm of the opinion that all speech is free, but all speech has consequence. The policital or social punishments given out in regards to PC/un-PC speech are the very nature of public discoure. That's what an election becomes - who's *opinions* align with a particular voter. It should be pretty clear from this election that supposed "un-PC" speech didn't result in a punishment via vote. Whether the media wants to try to punish is up to them. Whether the public wants to allow the media to punish someone is also up to them.
If Moe called for tight border controls (and a 30' high wall), I say feel free. If people want to label him as "racist" (though he be far from it), I'd also say feel free. But I'd also say they're wrong.
The example of this election is a great example of that supposed "punishment" of un-PC speech was overblown. The media attempted to punish. A good portion of the public said baloney on that. The "PC" mdeia/crowd had been winning the public persuasion game before (us, the public, had allowed it), until the un-PC crowd decided to change the strategy and not accept the punishment (got tougher). Trump owned the downside of his un-PC speech and rejected the punishment.
Let's also acknowledge that labels, -isms, and offensive/un-PC speech fly voraciously from both left/right directions. It's ironic for conservatives to label a small slice of college age liberals as "whiny, safe room needing, etc, etc" while also crying foul when a small slice of conversatism is tagged with any number of "unfair' offensive labels. It's also ironic for liberals to label a slice of Trump supporters and deplorable/racist and then also cry foul when an "unfair" label is applied to them.
Apparently, neither side is a big fan of being label.
Personally, I'd advocate for society to be more restrained on both accords - less labels AND more PC speech. I think it would serve us all better to be more considerate in our conversation with/about others. But I acknowledge our contemporary American culture is very much not this was on the ground. So for me, it's either get rid of both or get rid of none (and I don't see how I could be ethically against/for one and not the same for the other). Looks like getting rid of none is the American default - so let's all get a little tougher about it and recognize it for what it is - talk.