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.
People often mistake freedom of speach / expression to mean they can say anything they want without reprocutions while ignoring laws that already exist to set restrictions (perjury, libel/slander, obscenity, etc).
The rights of one person stops when it infringes on the rights of another. If a person’s speach or actions is determined to be producing harm then there should be consequences.
Freedom of speach does not mean freedom from being responsible for that speach.