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 isn’t about a list of allowed words from which you can remove ones you dislike. It’s the ability to speak your mind freely.
Hate speech is very much part of free speech. As is defamation. Banning them is limiting free speech. It’s just that civilized countries determined that’s justified and morally right in some cases and decided to define some red lines. But that doesn’t remove hate speech from the umbrella of free speech.