The fundamental idea behind speech is that it is a reflection of our mind and our reasoning. It is NOT the same thing as the actual 'reason' in our mind. By restricting speech, you do not 'change' anything of real significance.
If you force a man to only look in a mirror which shows a distorted view of his body, then not only he will be unable to do anything about his body, whenever he would want to do something about his body, he would go in the wrong direction.
When someone says 'gas all kikes', it isn't that by him not expressing that thought, you have permanently altered his reasoning. He is expressing that idea (assuming he meant it seriously, and not in 4chany way), out of the feeling of hatred and anger in his mind.
Similarly, when someone hears 'gas all kikes', and he thinks 'damn right', it isn't that without him hearing that vile statement from the first person, somehow the feelings in his mind won't really arise.
Now what about a more reasoned structured argument made by the first person, instead of just some call, for instance systematically blaming a certain group of people, and presenting 'proof'?
Again, if the speech is free, then it can be tackled down by other good people, explaining things. To every 'Mein Kampf', you can write 'Your Lies', or something else to appeal to anyone who wants to 'truly' believe in anything.
Finally, irrespective of what you may think, it is not possible to successfully curb speech, if someone writes a hateful book, it is spread in the underground circles, credited to anonymous groups. And when people receive that literature, the first question they ask is "hmm.. I wonder why some people are so insistent about not wanting anyone to read this? I wonder what evidence of wrongdoing is listed in this book against the other group. I wonder if what this book says is right, because otherwise the rulers wouldn't be so interested in preventing others from reading this". And I have first hand experience of this.
If by banning intolerant you can make people tolerant, if by forcing them to interact with others, you can make them like others, if by banning certain kinds of speech, you can change people's minds, then go for it. But since I know that's not possible, I am against restrictions on any kind of speech.
As far as Chomsky goes, this is actually a great illustration of the problem. I think he's a Communist, you disagree. Well guess what- a lot of the 'protestors' in Charlottesville were white Nationalists with Nazi overtones, some were hardcore Nazis, some were dabbling alt-righters. So who decides which or any of them gets to protest/speak? You, me, the government, Google?
Its not just a slippery slope, its an avalanche of stupidity to try to do viewpoint censorship.
Here, read this: https://qz.com/1053957/charlottesville-neo-nazis-and-the-cas...
I do not support the Nazi's right to say what they want. Nazism resulted in the murder of 30 million people. It engulfed much of the Western world in a war that ravaged nations and killed millions. It calls for ethnic cleansing and racial oppression. It is literally the opposite of the liberal democracy the United States is based on. It runs counter to the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and it does not promote freedom, equality, and justice for all. Much of the same can be lodged against the people who support the Confederacy.
I'm for dissent and speaking out. I do think, however, there is speech, which while is not libel and slander, crosses a line that should not be tolerated in a free and just society. Slippery slopes, intolerance, etc. A good litmus test is to ask if your speech calls for the killing or enslavement of those who are different than you. Considering we waged 2 wars over Nazism and the Confederacy, I'd say those ideas fall into that category.