"Hard problems" in the social realm are nearly always the result of two independent entities, where each entity should be entitled to their full rights, but those rights are in conflict. Think the abortion debate (right of a woman's bodily autonomy vs. right of the fetus/child), gun debate (right to bear arms vs right to not get shot in school or the grocery store), transgender people in sports debate (right of individuals to compete in sports vs. right of other competitors to have a fair playing field).

Thus, when it comes to free speech, while I used to be more of a "free speech absolutist", I think the past 10-20 years have shown real dangers of unlimited free speech, especially that enabled by technology and anonymity. I'm not necessarily arguing one way or the other on any particular case, only emphasizing that I don't think an "absolutist" position makes sense - there have always been limits on free speech, even in the US. It's a hard problem precisely because words can have such serious consequences. I mean, look at the mobs that were whipped up against the Rohingya in Myanmar. Where do you draw the line there on free speech and inciting murder?