Making a little more about the posture of the PCO:
The bourgeois democracy claims for itself the title of the best system and its ideologists reach the rays of saying that it is simply the only possible system, adopt a deterministic stance by affirming that the "natural path of progress" of nations necessarily tends to liberal democracy.
To justify the alleged infallibility of bourgeois democracy these ideologues give the suffrage an almost mystical status claiming that through it it it would be possible to represent reliablely all the wishes of the masses and at the same time to prevent the barbarism of the masses themselves. There is the great contradiction; at the same time, in order to justify its system of exploitation, the liberals claim that the population, simply because it is what it is, is able to make the best decisions, namely that the majority would supposedly be naturally endowed with reason and truth and that it exercises that reason through suffrage. At the same time, when the masses exercise their supposed infallibility through the suffrage to move away from liberal democracy, then things become complicated. Usually when it happens is followed by foreign coups and interventions (as in the case of the 20th-century military dictatorships in Latin America or, more recently, in the case of Bolivia). To prevent these "undesirable use" of the right to suffrage, bourgeois democracies create mechanisms to limit the mass' actions, some of which are more evident (such as the prohibition of certain parties, citing as example Poland and Ukraine; the weakening of the power of voting in the US, etc.) and others a little less, such as the dubiousness of meaning and application of freedom of expression. Following the liberal Enlightenment logic, the freedom of unrestricted expression would be a means by which knowledge is refined and expanded, the public debate would be a great "market of ideas" where only the best would stand out and the others would disappear as the mass education level increased. Reality is totally different; it is impossible to "ranke" ideas and, even those rejected by the majority of the population, always find a corner where they can survive and eventually grow. Moreover, even if freedom of unrestricted expression is in accordance with the enlightening liberal principle, it did not contribute to the practical utility of liberal democracy, which is to defend and perpetuate the ruling class.
When the PCO comes to openly defend freedom of unrestricted expression they are exposing one of the contradictions of bourgeois democracy; demanding coherence by the liberals is a way of weakening their speech. More than that, is it not the affluence of systemic contradictions that will enable the invibilization of the continuity of capitalism?
I do not see why criticizing the PCO in this matter, they are not doing anything less than expected of a leftist/legalist opposition; all the other left-wing politicians who left desperate to criticize the PCO do not seem to want anything else but to mediate the media and give a hit on the bird.