Conservatives blamed liberals.
Liberals blamed conservatives.

Each of them pointed to things that the *other* wants (or is percieved to want) banned as an example of a government prohibition getting out of control – while defending their own bans as absolutly essential for the good of society.

Liberals mainy support bans in the interest of public health – recreational drugs, smoking, extremally unhealthy food, dangerous activities. Conservatives usual line was morality or public decency for their bans on recreational drugs (different reason, same conclusion), pornography, prostitution, sexually-themed entertainment…

And both said that the others were calling for a nanny-state or inviting oppression :>

It wasn’t in the discussion, but I think there is a similar situation in regards to freedom of speech. Both liberals and conservatives support it, but they manage to somehow justify exceptions in various places. The locations of the exceptions differ, so both sides point to these holes as proof that the other do not really support freedom of speech, while ignoring their own excuses. For the liberals, the big excuses are political correctness and avoiding offence. For conservatives, the big excuses are all to do with sex. Both of them tend to say that what they would want to restrict isn’t really speech.