That's a very US-centric view. Most democratic countries with constitutions less than 230 years old have broad exceptions for certain kinds of impermissible speech. (Germany takes it to an extreme, but even that seems to be compatible with a liberal democratic basic order.)
It's just that many of my fellow Americans choose to interpret our constitution in a simplistic, childish, and frankly incorrect way.
Our constitutional rights (including free speech) were never meant to be interpreted in a vacuum, irrespective of all other rights.
Our courts have certainly never interpreted things that way. Our courts have always weighed each individual, constitutionally-mandated right against other rights.
They have, but the absolute language of the constitution has led courts to interpret freedom of speech in the US much more broadly than in countries with more modern constitutions.
