Man I couldn't agree more. Banning someone cause you disagree with them EVEN if you can reasonably think what they say is wrong is becomeone oneself an agent of anti-free speech and one cannot criticize fascism or hatred or whatever if one begin applying "the enemy's tactics".

Fair enough.. Though I'd counter with a few key points -

For one, why focus on the negative? Free speech will inevitably bring out some horrible speech, but it will also bring out some great speech that might have otherwise been suppressed. Hell, I believe we probably wouldn't have many of the technologies, religions, and theories, and philosophical concepts we have today if not for the free exchange of ideas.

Second, this "supression of hate groups" sounds nice in theory, though I'd aruge that attempting them to silence them through force or threats would only serve to boost their cause and give them more power, as they'd be able to claim victimhood by pointing to these attempts of silencing them.

Additionally, how do you decide who makes these decisions of who can say what? Who decides what speech is tolerable and what isn't? And what makes them qualified? Do they have some sort of agenda of their own that might make them want to suppress certain speech? What makes these people in power so special, and the keepers of information/morality?

And again, the suppresion of free speech IS ironically a sort of Nazism/Fascism, so those attempting to silence it would ironcally sort of BECOME what they're trying to silence in some ways.. Authority figures and governments are just as capable of hate - who's to say they can't abuse this power to merely silence OTHER forms of hate (or worse, ideas they falsely VIEW as hate) while enforcing their own? They're still only human after all..

The whole practice, of placing such empasis and importance on mere words and ideas, sets and extremely bad precedent and sets the stage for a chaotic, oppressive society from my view, full of an extrememly angry and repressed masses of people.

Oh we're really gonna disagree on this. I'm against that because depending on who's the people in power or arbiter that could easily lead to a totalitarian state. it could be abused too easily. Also, "hate groups" will exist regardless of what you do. You can migate their overall influence by countering their arguments/moves with reason and logic. You're not trying to convince them that they are wrong but rather show to everyone how foolish their ideas are. That's fairly easy to do when there's alot of holes in their arguments. 

Allow anyone to speak openly and freely. That way it's much easier to track any persons of interest with troubling ideas versus them just remaining quiet and trying to change things behind the scenes.  Suppressing open speech doesn't stop the spreading of ideas because you can't watch everyone all the time. They'll still talk behind closed doors. If you try to control that, it will lead to authortarism and you won't stop what you were aiming for. The reason why a lot of hate groups have died off or weakened into insignificance is because people have been challenging their ideas for a long time. 

So because you think the idea is harmful you think people should be banned from making those statements? You know there's people who think video games in themselves are violent and harmful to society, and I doubt you would like to see them banned. In my opinion people should make effective arguments agaisnt ideologies they think is harmful, rather than just banning people from saying certain things.

Caesar claimed to have killed around 1 million Celts (most of them weren't even soldiers), which was a huge part of the Celtic population, so I don't see how Hitler was that much worse.

Free speech is important but I still believe to spread fascist ideas, hatred and lies should be judiciary punishable by the system. Excuse me, I'm German. I was raised to think that way.

Humans cant be trusted. Also I believe in a Big Brother sort of world anyway. Of course I only prefer it as part of the ruling class. So even banning isn't enough, really

I'm sure he didn't invent a maschinery to kill them though. Going to war against a populace of one certain region or just denying one whole lineage of man their right to live is still a big moral difference in my opinion. Not even talking about the difference in numbers.

Humans cant be trusted. Also I believe in a Big Brother sort of world anyway. Of course I only prefer it as part of the ruling class. So even banning isn't enough, really

I'm sure he didn't let someone invent a gas-chamber to kill them though. Going to war against a populace of one certain region or just denying one whole lineage of man their right to live is still a big moral difference in my opinion. Not even talking about the difference in numbers.