What free speech is he referring to? The only speech I know of that has been censored is terrorist groups. It makes me uncomfortable when I see people here complaining about that.
A lot of people in the US don't seem to realize how extreme we are as a country when it comes to free speech. We fetishize free speech in a way that I feel is not healthy. I don't think any country's laws are perfect in this regard, but all the other western democracies seem to be just fine with their laws against things like hate speech. I don't see how the US allowing hate speech is beneficial to the country or its people.
This opinion tends to be an unpopular on HN and I figured I would meet the original OP on their terms.
If mere functioning is your goal for the country, then certainly countries without strong free speech protections can function. They can even function without democracy at all.
But most people want more for their country.
Western democracies with weaker free speech protections do function, but they also have a substantial pressure outlet in the form of websites hosted in other countries that don't kowtow to oppressive governments.
It's not implemented well enough to detect the fine differences between western countries.
Hate speech laws reduce the range of discourse. They suppress dissent. That's inherently undemocratic.
Relegating that permissiveness to a particular entity allows that subjectivity to be enforced in perverse ways.
Many people feel it is better to tolerate the objectionable and hurtful speech than to allow a 3rd party to use subjective judgment to censor.
...unless you think they are terrorists.