This is the most unfortunate consequence of the idea that free speech must be limited.

If it is accepted that a part of the people cannot be trusted to not do wrong things when others tell them to do so, then an unavoidable consequence is that to that part of the people the right to vote must also be denied, because if they may be convinced by lies to do very wrong things, like violence, then it is even more certain that they will be easily convinced by lies to do a minor mistake, like casting a wrong vote.

Any proposal to deny the right of voting to stupid people, or to give different weight to the votes, depending on the "intelligence" of the voters, would rightly generate huge protests.

However, any proposal to restrict the free speech without also restricting the right to vote is logically inconsistent, even if many seem to not notice this.

Do you trust people who live in an echo chamber overrun with disinformation to deduce the truth about the outcome of the US election? If so, can you speak to the mechanism by which such people can determine the truth? And could you speak to the empirical failure of this population to discover the truth?

So are countries that have more limits on free speech than what the US has, less democratic than the US?

Many European countries have more restrictions on free speech than USA, so yes, they are less democratic by this criterion.

By other criteria, e.g. by evaluating how many abusive laws they have that favor a few rich individuals that own some large companies against the majority of the citizens, most European countries are more democratic than USA.

The same conclusion comes from other criteria, like how easy is for most citizens to access education or health services.