Agreed. From the outside of the United States, it truly seems surreal, the way this is often framed in almost theological, fundamentalist, language.
Free speech as the right to dissent in a democracy, almost every reasonable person in the western world can get behind this.
Free speech as the right to march in the streets demanding the destruction of democracy and the physical harassment and denial of rights to minority groups, advocating the use of political violence, the removal of democratically elected figures, the alteration of elections, and even the overthrow of the state; this is a place that most of the rest of the western world won't follow.
And -- in the actual history of the United States -- when this kind of political speech was made by the left wing in the form of the communist movement, it was heavily opposed and censored in brutal fashion. The United States spied on, jailed, censored, etc far left wing activists for decades both abroad and domestically. The intelligence agencies as they exist in the US were almost exclusively set up for this purpose. This was policy advocated for and enacted by politicians on both the liberal and conservative side of the fence. There's maybe less of it now, but that's because there's almost no far left present in the US anymore.
But there seems to be a blind spot by many libertarians of various stripes in the United States when we are talking about this kind of speech from the far right.
The organized Far Right is the biggest actual material threat to democracy in the western world right now -- not a few instances of maybe-censorship.
The meaningful discussion is to when and how and if we (as a society) intervene around the organization of these groups. I think it should be clear from what happened on January 6th that there are explicit and concrete and measurable costs to democracy and an open society itself to not intervening at all.