Right. So there are forms of speech that are not permissible.

The argument then isn’t “I don’t agree with this law banning calls for genocide because I’m against all forms of speech restrictions”. The argument is really “I don’t agree with this law banning calls for genocide because I don’t see calls for genocide as something that should be banned.” The latter argument is difficult to justify though, which is why the former argument is used by a lot “free speech absolutionists”.