Not sure I understand,

Speaking itself is an act. To protect speech, you have to allow speech acts that are unpopular, wrong, and radical. Who chooses which ACTS are allowable? What happens when the ideas you support become unpopular and the ideas you endorse become illegal or censored (have you been paying attention to Trump world)?

In addition, I disagree about how ideas become hate. Lots of pathways, some of it is created by cycles of trauma, some through ignorance, often it is objectification, and sometime people committing violence have mental health issues (I am barely scratching the surface). Reductionism is necessary but rarely sufficient.

Also, social media is one of the last places on earth that people without corporate backing have potential access to large masses of human beings, restrictions on that access point scare the hell out of me.

Finally, the alternative to free speech isn’t silence. Pushing the speech you disagree with underground creates silos where like-minded folks gather and plan (see the Alt-Right). When the tide turns, and they have snuck someone into office, all of a sudden, they rule everything.

Don’t want to seem disagreeable, totally nice to talk :)