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.
Hate speech is not a well-defined word.
I see that as THE major problem in this debate. But many of the campaigners/influencers/politicians avoid to define it clearly. They try to only discuss whether hate speech should be free or limited, but they don’t say what it even is.
These are THE DISHONEST ONES among the campaigners!! Some of them try to limit every word you say so only a fine polished meaninglessness remains allowed, and no criticism anymore.
I have no problem with disallowing hate speech according to a most strict and narrow definition: if its purpose is to incite hatred on large scale, like a war or a racial genocide etc.
But all things like a common bar brawl or telling a politician what he is, that must always be free speech.