Being free to express your opinion does not automatically mean you will use that freedom to be verbally abusive. What you have below there is simply based on a false presumption that free speech advocates are using it for solely nefarious purposes.
Free speech = Being abusive. I think that would fall under false dichotomy/false choice.
Let me put it this way: if you want to call me a n***er, so hate speech, I will defend your right to say that. If you don't want to serve me food because I'm black, so association, I will defend your right to do whatever you want to do in your private business. If you don't want to call me by my correct pronoun, like these triggered snowflakes here, I will be offended, but also, I will defend your right to call me whatever the hell you want.
Most civilized nations do have laws in place that limit a person's ability to insult or defamate other people.
I don't know about the US.
United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia
Intentional infliction of emotional distress - Wikipedia
Everything in the above links seem reasonable to me except "emotional distress" which is far too broad given how hyper sensitive certain groups are today. Especially since the majority of those offended by certain words are people who believe that the group in question should be offended, regardless of whether said group is actually offended or not.
When anyone can claim offense of any word, eventually nothing except "approved" words will be spoken.
But who determines what's approved? They will be the true masters of the future.
That may make certain people all warm and fuzzy now, but in the long run, they'll end up regretting it.
BC, have you ever paused to consider that you are "hyper sensitive" to some things, for example the perception that your freedom of speech is somehow being infringed upon by other people's "hyper sensitivity"?