While a great deal of "free speech" that takes the form of abuse is largely untramelled, the freedom to make bold "unsubstantiated" hypothesis is what is missing in civil discourse.
Resistance to "hypothesizing" stems from both Left and Right in equal measure
Very often hypotheses stem from beliefs and prejudice.
But the freedom to voice those hunches is central to an intellectually healthy climate
We actually need less "free speech" on that front.
What we need is the freedom to hypothesize, guess, make bold and often ridiculous hunches
The greater the freedom to abuse and vent anger, the less the freedom to "hypothesize", because the person who wishes to voice a bold thought will always fear the possibility of abuse
The wisdom of the crowds is supreme, and the individual is subservient to it.
Being a conservative, I very much respect that point of view
But to me total suppression of hypothesizing doesn't seem like anything close to an optimal tradeoff