Free speech or offensive/hate speech; should we let haters speak?

(Note; if something doesn't look complete, please let me know. I am not the absolute best in terms of refining articles like I should.)

(Just to let you know, I do not endorse or agree with Prager University's opinion on the current Israeli government)

I’ve found that many people dislike “offensive” speech and wants the state to take action. Here’s my argument;  As said on 3:40 of Jesse Ventura Educates Foxnews Anchor About Fluoride & The Nazis, Jesse Ventura says that part of freedom is the freedom to be stupid. If you don't think that laws can be abused for political gain, look up the lies made by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Without letting people speak, smart and stupid alike, we may not be a free nation today. Let me elaborate.

What if the laws you want do come in, & there's success in cleaning out the hogwash idiots have puked. But what if the law gets interpreted to cover things such as disagreeing with certain groups and/or institutions, like say, the Israeli government (because a lot of their politicians are Jewish and Neo-Nazis also disagree with the Israeli government and may use it to accuse all Jews of crimes they had little to nothing to do with)? And then the laws could expand to also cover political &/or religious dissidents.

As crazy as all of this may seem, it has happened in history and will repeat unless we learn from our errors and change. To partially understand this, go watch 2 videos called "America, Flirting with the Dark Side of History" & "Economic Collapse & The Rise of Fascist & Racist Elements". 

While the examples shown in the videos can be labeled to be "extreme" it does show a quick glance of how quickly the thought police can grow once placed in power.

(Most of the following will be taken from "Freedom of Speech: How Is Offensive Speech Good For Society? | Learn Liberty")

Besides, free speech allows the voicing of what may be once unpopular and at least controversial, yet potentially game-changing views. You don't have to like offensive speech; in fact, you can denounce it if you wish and criticise what you see as wrong. But people using force to shut down people or views that they dislike contradicts the supposed tolerance that they claim to defend and/or promote. When people voice controversial opinions, there is a chance to open up a dialogue to refute them.

For example, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of Neo-Nazis to march through Jewish neighborhoods and communities while expressing controversial views. When these demonstrations take place, counter-demonstrations does as well.

While this may be shocking to many people, allowing "offensive speech" has actually helped with progress and human understanding. Some expressions, once denounced as "offensive", "dangerous" and so on, may sometime become true. A few examples of this was Galileo challenging religious views on astronomy, abolitionists fighting to end slavery (even when slave owners disliked it), pro gender equality people advocating for women's rights, civil rights leaders trying to end forced/non-voluntary segregation, gay magazine publishers, whose were were considered "obscene", and so on. Speech that authorities once tried to censor or otherwise control have contributed a lot to today's culture.

When authorities get the power to censor quote-on-quote "offensive" views, they also have the power to suppress dissenting (disagreeing) and/or minority views. In effect, censors are able to create a policy of ignorance by design. This is why smart societies respect freedom of speech and expression, even when it causes discomfort and/or offense.

"The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses." 

"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people doing the oppressing." 

"I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm for justice, no matter who it is for or against. I'm a human being, first and foremost, and as such I'm for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole." -Malcolm X.

"Truth is truth, even if no one believes it. A lie is a lie, even if everyone believes it" - Anonymous.

"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant." - Maximilien Robespierre.

"Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage." - Winston S. Churchill.

"Knowledge is freedom and ignorance is slavery". - Miles Davis.

"Oh please! That's ridiculous! But don't free people have the right to be ridiculous?" - John Stossel on raw milk, from his "Illegal everything" episode. 

"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." - From controversial author (who I'm NOT even a fan of), Salman Rushdie.

"The truth is extreme. To make it moderate is to lie" - StormCloudsGathering.

"A half truth is a whole lie" - Yiddish proverb.

"Let the haters hate! It's the highlight of their life" - Michael Whaley.

Now do you support free spech? If "Yes", then please support the organizations on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Freedom_of_expression_organizations, among others.

P.S: for me, there are a few exceptions to this view. For example, I think it would be justified to shut down an operation involving videos that were made without the involved person's consent, such as pornography showing people (particularly children) being involved in sexual activities without their consent, sadistic content about abusing animals on purpose, along with cyber-bullying and so on. I also prefer that, for their own sake, kids and teens not do some silly stuff like posting inappropriate pictures (onto public websites) or sending out pictures without the owner's/producer's permission (and especially should NOT send them for the purpose of offending) or something like that. I am not sure rather or not the state were to enforce it (leaning towards "yes"), but it should definately not become ridiculous, especially when people who have commited worse acts get away with it scot-free.
Along with this, direct threats to use violence unprovoked or to directly incite violence against a group and/or individual (such as "Let's attack group/individual x") could turn out to be real, and this is why I would see a justification for intervention by the state.
(Note; you do not have to read the rest of the following. This is just a bonus.)
Going on a tangent, it ticks me off that if there is a picture or video of a child that shows slightly too much skin then whoever made it can get into serious trouble (as said before), yet, if you actually do bad things to a child and using medical b.s. to justify it, you (and the piece of crud parents) can get away with it, literally, scott free. And if the child uses force to defend their body, the for-profit Nazi experimenter medical practitioner can cry "assault" or something like that (and this is why I have so many child rights related links on my Google+ profile, from the specific "Child rights" website link to "Stop child brides" link).
However, I personally believe that an individual's body is sacred property; so sacred that I believe that they should defend it with, if necessary, lethal force.
Some people out there are going to be like "But demo, don't you think that it would be morally or ethically justifiable for a kid to pull out a derringer or pocket pistol on their doctor and pop them one over a unnecessary but small procedure?". Well, of course that there will be gray areas to this, and you will have to gauge the situation and the morals and ethics of everyone's (including your own) actions on your own.
Going on yet another tangent, I have addressed a similar self-defense issue on https://plus.google.com/u/0/116561475917836019721/posts/NEM5gJY3xQu (and StormCloudsGathering does adress this issue on an article called "When is violence justified?", though I don't perfectly agree on taxes, and I am for sales taxes and a maximum wage for C.E.O.'s).