The free speech debate becomes tiresome when you understand the issue behind it, as with most politics it’s the divide between the masculine and the feminine. The left calls “free speech” the ability to speak about everyone in a gentle and polite way, to engage in sexually provocative actions (e.g. pornography), and to cheek (flirt) with *dad* (God/the nation/male authority figures)—“hate speech” or prohibited speech constitutes anything that is rude (*hate facts*—facts that upset a narcissistic bubble), speech against other races or sexualities or women (essentially, the assertion all people aren’t equal—since women exoterically want to be fair to all), and speech that is “repressive” (old-time religion, restrictions on exhibitionism).
The right calls “free speech” the ability to speak in a frank way, even if it upsets people and is perceived as “rude”: it specifically defends the right to criticise other nations (races), religions, and beliefs in strong terms—yet it wants to suppress blasphemy (against the home religion), obscenity (corruption of women and children—the case being that both are easily corrupted), and seditious or treasonous speech (symbolically, flag-burning and similar).
As you can see, these are effectively two different things—two different visions of the good. So, naturally, if one side is in the saddle as regards what speech is permitted then the other feels like there is “no free speech”. For the casual observer—even someone with a deep interest—it can be difficult to see this is so because people assume there is one monolithic “free speech” out there. Actually, there are two ideas about it—with my view being that the feminine perspective is perverse, not the correct way to handle speech at all. The current speech regime is feminine, has been for decades. To talk about these two approaches to speech as if they were both “free speech” makes about as much sense as using the same word to refer to sausages and cheese—you would find that much culinary confusion would be generated.