The quoted article is
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35035087 in case people are still having trouble with archive.is. The opinion piece being discussed is
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/07/opinion/eric-schmidt-on-how-to-build-a-better-web.html?_r=0Technology companies should work on tools to disrupt terrorism - such as creating a hate speech "spell-checker" - Google's chairman Eric Schmidt has said.
Writing in the New York Times, Mr Schmidt said using technology to automatically filter-out extremist material would "de-escalate tensions on social media" and "remove videos before they spread".
...that's not what he said? Or at least it's not the obvious interpretation of what he said.
Authoritarian governments tell their citizens that censorship is necessary for stability. It’s our responsibility to demonstrate that stability and free expression go hand in hand. We should make it ever easier to see the news from another country’s point of view, and understand the global consciousness free from filter or bias. We should build tools to help de-escalate tensions on social media — sort of like spell-checkers, but for hate and harassment. We should target social accounts for terrorist groups like the Islamic State, and remove videos before they spread, or help those countering terrorist messages to find their voice. Without this type of leadership from government, from citizens, from tech companies, the Internet could become a vehicle for further disaggregation of poorly built societies, and the empowerment of the wrong people, and the wrong voices.
(emphasis mine)
"De-escalate tensions on social media" refers to the propose "hate-speech spellcheck", not to any automatic filtering. If it is meant to function as a spell-check, then it's not
automatic, it's an optional tool you can use. Nobody is being censored by giving them a tool. You could have a system that blocks everything that the checker flags as hate speech, and that would be troubling, but I don't see reason to think that's being proposed.
Is a hate speech spell check viable? I have no idea. One that can catch known slurs clearly is, but there's no unified database of what counts as a slur (and whether some particular things count is a controversial idea). But even if you solve that, lots of hate speech is not in word choice but in ideas being expressed, and I don't think that can be computer-checked as of yet.
The other thing mentioned is trying to stop pro-terrorism videos from spreading in social media, which might or might not have delicate free speech implications but is not new. I'm pretty sure most websites' terms of service already ban promoting terrorism.