Free speech is regulated in every country with free speech though, so if regulation means you don't have free speech then nobody actually has free speech today.

I don't think it is a useful excercise to define concepts so narrowly that everybody gets lumped into the same misclanous category.

Germany for instance has very clear regulation on free speech, but that in no way puts them in the same category as China, North Korea or Russia.

Free speech touches upon the paradox of Karl Popper about tolerance: A tolerant society cannot tolerate the intolerant.

Raphael Cohen-Almagor extends upon this in relation to free speech: "it seems contradictory to extend freedom of speech to extremists who ... if successful, ruthlessly suppress the speech of those with whom they disagree."

I don't think we can have one narrowly defined universal idea of what free speech is. Free speech concepts are not the same in different countries. People see different purposes behind the concept.

The US for instance allows hate speech, which is not commonly allowed in Europe. On the other hand the US does not make free speech a protected right. The US makes it possible for people to essentially sign away their right to speech for instance in an employment situation. That is much harder in much of Europe.

I would not say one understanding of free speech is more correct than the other by some objective measure. Personally I believe free speech laws should be judged based on some well defined goals for human society. Maintaining freedom, democracy and holding those in power accountable seems to me like important goals. Free speech laws should derive from those laws IMHO.

But I approach politics from a pragmatist point of view rather than based on any particular axioms. Reality rarely conforms to our ideals and we must adapt to this reality.