Americans for lack of a better description grapple with violence of the state differently than Europeans, but it seems neither are without consequence.
For the most part, this act says that content already considered illegal by existing and new laws must be policed by platforms. What is illegal is actually quite well defined, it seems. This article covers it nicely: https://www.theguardian.com/law/article/2024/aug/08/what-is-...
Indeed, the controversy is, it appears, not about what is illegal, but about how the onus on policing this, and other things like the restrictions, is put on platforms. There are no major changes to what content is and isn't illegal! There are some additions, like "revenge porn", which is likewise easy to define and hard to see as a fundamental freedom of speech issue.
Freedom of speech is a binary choice for a society. When you introduce politically motivated discretion and ambiguity, then instead of protecting people, such laws serve only as tools of power and control. With freedom of speech and press, the laws preclude any attempts at control like this. Freedom of expression and press supersede responsibility for the potential of other people doing something bad.
This is why they can't have nice things. It's the equivalent of shutting down businesses because you impose a law that 20 armed guards must attend every building 24x7, just in case some bad guys with guns try to get in.
I do however reject the notion that it's either absolute freedom of speech or a totalitarian censorship state. Freedom of speech has always had well defined boundaries, well before the Internet - and yes, even in America, just these boundaries are somewhere different to eg. Europe.