Every faction claims they support free speech and every faction also supports suppression of certain types of speech.

But do you agree this bill is positive?

But this assumes that a bill is required to establish fundamental rights. Free speech unfortunately does not exist anywhere. Even the USA has restrictions, such as "speech aimed at inciting quick reaction/violence" or some other restrictions with regards to "offensive" words and minors or similar. Or, even simpler, to talk very loudly in public late at night. So free speech is not unlimited, despite its name.

> this assumes that a bill is required to establish fundamental rights

No, it assumes a bill is required to establish consequences for fundamental rights being denied.

> speech aimed at inciting quick reaction/violence

Speech alone isnt sufficient to be charged with that, which is why it passed supreme Court scrutiny. Similar to criminal conspiracy laws, where you have to pursue tangible actions IRL not just talk about it with a friend.

Credible threats of violence are illegal despite "only" being speech. Also "obscene" material without any other redeeming quality. So there are definitely exceptions in the US.

Also I believe you are wrong about incitement. It is the speech itself that is illegal, you (ie the speaker) don't have to do anything yourself or even really know or otherwise interact with the would be perpetrators.

Yeah. On pretty much every other topic important to me, their official positions are either diametrically opposed or lean into another direction far enough that supporting other parties would be a better choice.