So you are against the freedom of speech principle?

What gave you that impression? Moreover, what do you mean by "the freedom of speech principle"? It can mean anything ranging from "you can literally say anything you want and the government should protect you while doing so (eg. punishing companies that refuse to transmit your speech)", to "most speech, excluding a laundry list of exceptions like hate speech, copyright infringement, defamation, heresy, certain ideologies, etc."

What is hate speech?

Everyone, please stop engaging this person who is arguing in bad faith, and only seeks to waste your time.

Is everything supposed to be black and white?

Following the arguments put forth in the rest of this thread, it is possible to support free speech while still arguing for exceptions and being against free speech absolutism.

Such an argument against an entire whole does not logically follow from the given argument that specific exception should be made.

If you think it can't have exceptions, do you think libel and slander laws are a travesty?