Making it harder to cross that first line absolutely matters in making it harder for them to cross the line of becoming an active danger to others.
Considering how hate speech is a very flimsy term, I don't think that this always follows. I do believe that there's likely a correlation, but I doubt it's strong. Some will say that claiming that there are only 2 genders is hate speech, others that claiming that abortion is murder is hate speech. Not to mention that there are many cases where something clearly not hate speech is labeled as hate speech.
In the UK a teenager was arrested for quoting rap song lyrics on an Instagram profile page. This was labeled a hate crime by the prosecutor.[0] Do you think that this makes her more likely to engage in hateful behavior?
Bullies at school often get away with their bullying, because they bully in ways that are not overtly noticeable. They will use terms that aren't offensive to make fun of and hurt others.
Everyone thinks hateful thoughts in brief moments of anger, but very few people ever act on those thoughts or express them. Their whole recruitment process was to get someone to move from just thinking thoughts to acting on them, usually by spreading the message to others. Once you cross that line from thinking to action, the bright line divider is gone--it's all just a matter of degrees of action.
What beliefs people hold in their heads is the result of a multitude of factors and upbringing and it's really beyond our ability and probably not a good idea to think we can somehow turn every racist into a non-racist with sufficient facts and thoughts and prayer or personal coaching.
What we can do is intervene when it comes to racists acting on their racism, be that in the form of public speech acts or even violence, that is to say when they participate in public life, for example on internet platforms.
>The Soviet Union is an example of that - people outwardly expressed agreement with the government, but secretly were against it.
And what happened to the Soviet Union when all those people were able to express their dissent? Nothing good. If you're saying that racists are going to be as empowered by lack of supression as dissidents were in the Soviet Union I'm not sure you're making a great case for ignoring their propaganda.
Furthermore, overt hate speech isn't necessarily the problem for society. It matters more for society what beliefs someone holds than what they are willing to express. The Soviet Union is an example of that - people outwardly expressed agreement with the government, but secretly were against it.