I really, really do not understand the "NO REGULATION OF SPEECH AT ALL" types.
They almost never have any issue with laws against;
- Conspiracy
- Fraud
- Slander/Libel
- Owning/transmitting child porn (as distinct from creating it)
- Lying under oath
- Incitement to riot
- Threats of violence
Among probably a host of others.
Those restrictions on speech, even Americans for the most part agree with (and they're all illegal in the USA). They're
all forms of speech.
Hate speech is easily comparable to a bunch of other items out of that list. That doesn't mean I'm claiming that Americans
must support restrictions on hate speech, but there's this stance as if there's some unimpeachable principle behind that stance, and
there is not. Speech is already restricted and limited in a host of ways, particularly when that speech causes or risks causing objective harm to others. And hate speech
objectively harms others.
By all means, take whichever stance you want on the subject. But don't pretend that legislating against hate speech is some high-grade infringement of the right to free speech. It is not. No more than any of those other restrictions you have no objection to.