According to the video:
American model of free speech, which largely rejects hate speech laws, is essential because governments and institutions should not have the power to decide which ideas are acceptable. They argue that restricting speech does more than silence offensive opinions, it shapes what people are able to think, discourages open debate, and makes society less resilient by suppressing controversial or unpopular viewpoints. While acknowledging that hate speech laws are intended to protect vulnerable groups, the speaker contends that in practice such laws mainly protect the authority and narratives of those in power. They conclude that true intellectual freedom requires allowing even offensive or unpopular ideas to be expressed so they can be challenged rather than censored.
Free speech is the idea that anyone can voice their own opinions, yes. However, if these opinions hurts others or restrict their free speech in some way, I feel like that shouldn’t be allowed. I think most people would probably agree with this.
“Hate speech” is a very broad term that describes all sorts of nasty ideas, but let’s give an example of a bigot who wants to relinquish women’s suffrage (right to vote) and is advocating for this idea in a public area. This would be an attempt to block the free speech of women, and should not be allowed! You could insert other discriminated communities into this analogy, bigots hate anything that’s even a little bit different from themselves.
Hate speech, in a nutshell, is advocating for the removal of rights and/or violence against certain groups of people. In either case, it restricts the freedom of speech of these communities. In many countries where free speech is not as strong, the removal of rights and state violence have both been used to silence opposition.
Of note, looking at their post history, the original poster seems to have unfavourable views on transgender folks. Yikes!
Their oldest post shows they seem slightly Islamophobic too, at least towards certain sects of Islam. It is titled “how the Sunnis are hiding their atrocities” with no additional context. I’m not religious, but I feel like that isn’t very cool of you. In another post, they refer to people who are against Iran’s current regime as “exmuslims”, implying that OP believes that Muslim = pro-Iran. I also think naming yourself after deities is generally considered disrespectful to most religions, though that differs depending on where you live (e.g. in Latin America, “Jesus” is a common given name), maybe it was okay for OP?
Another thing, they recently posted a few pro-Zionist articles in the news communities, one that claimed the bombed school was actually caused by the Iranians, and another that was about Hamas by the pro-Israeli “YNet” newspaper. They have also been posting off-topic content in these news communities, like for some reason they posted an article about how LLMs would support Palestine over Israel (how is that relevant??)
In a larger scale of rights overall, your rights to do something should end when it restricts other people’s rights. No one person should be above another. Not really how the world works, but it’s the idealistic goal.