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.
Didn’t watch the nearly half hour video, so just answering your question.
Free speech is free,if you limit it, its not free speech anymore, I will not argue against that. If you are for free speech, then government shouldn’t interfere and hate speech is part of that.
And honestly the way especially the UK but also other western countries are handling criticism against Israels actions under the umbrella of hate crimes is exactly what free speech proponents warned about. Hard to argue against that after the current events.
But I am not a free speech proponent, exactly because I think there should be limits to what is allowed to be said regarding lies and AlTeRnAtIvE fAcTs.
Hate speech is something that is regrettable, but nowadays I think it should be socially shamed and judged, not by the government (except if they are government workers). So moderators of social media are free to ban it in their rooms, but not enforced by the government.