Many countries have what you call "advanced citizenship", including my own, and many countries are as free - or, I would argue, freer - than the United States.
We manage such discourse - and to have advanced and enlightened social policies - by understanding the difference between the use of speech as discourse and the use of speech as a weapon.
And it's not about whether such discourse is legal in a society. The doctrine that whatever is legal is acceptable is pernicious. It's about understanding that it is as offensive and unacceptable to bludgeon a person with words as it is to do so with one's fists.
To proclaim in public that a person should be barred from employment, should be prohibited from marrying, should be subject to physical and emotional abuse - this is understood to be unacceptable, whether or not it is legal. It is unacceptable when asserted on the basis of religion, it is unacceptable when asserted on the basis of race, and it is unacceptable when asserted on the basis of gender or sexuality.
I don't think "advanced citizenship" involves inflicting harm on others, and it is precisely this distinction that sets apart civilization and citizenship from rank tribalism and the politics of fear.