Sure and there have never been any good people because everybody has failings. So what, that gives everybody carte blanche to murder kittens and eat babies?
Of course not. Nor does free speech give carte blanche to put a billboard featuring one's top-10 favorite CSAM images on the side of a highway because you own the land the billboard's on. Of course free speech requires regulation, and if that's not free than the kind of speech that fits the full-expanded definition of "freedom" breaks down when there are three or more people in the conversation.
Pushing the question to the extremes tends to give nonsense answers.
Like people who bring up pure free markets when discussing economics, an absolutist definition of free speech in a discussion about the real world is pointless. All speech is regulated, therefore all definitions of free speech that can be discussed imply some degree of regulation.
Do you want to have a discussion about free speech with some nuance or will every one of your comments be of the "murder kittens and eat babies" variety? The problem with absolutist statements and slippery slope arguments is that they just aren't interesting.
