So you just made up a different definition of freedom and them claimed there are freer countries? Free education and healthcare are not related to freedom. They can be present e.g. in the USSR or in a freer country like Canada (formerly). But they are not an essential ingredient nor do they imply anything about freedom in the usual constitutional sense. You're talking about the merits of a welfare state and calling it freedom
Free education and healthcare are definitely good, but that isn’t what constitutes a “free” state.
For example, Saudi Arabia has free education and healthcare but is an absolute monarchy that comes down hard on critics.
Almost most of the world lives under a constitution that guarantees freedom of speech, they just also live under a constitution that contradicts in another way
and I'm not talking about an ambiguous place like the UK where they is no one specific document outlining rights, clear modern constitutions
I'm thinking 3.5 billion out of 7.9 billion live in a place governed by a document that contains the same text as the First Amendment
I'm sure we can get it to over half. I just added the populations of China and India to the US, as I'm only familiar with their constitutions.
So just helping you strengthen your argument in the future, by maybe saying it differently.
There are freer countries than the USA — countries which provide access to health care and education that goes beyond "wage slavery" training — that criminalize hate speech. One incident of expressed racial hatred is enough to warrant criminal prosecution. These countries have not yet descended into dystopia. Some of them criminalized hate speech in response to dystopia in their recent past.
It's time to rethink whether an absolutist, "First Amendment-like"[0] approach to free speech is really the best approach.
[0] The absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment has only actually prevailed since 1967, when a conservative Supreme Court ruled that Klan marches were protected speech in Brandenburg v. Ohio.