I think we came up at the same time.
I belive you hit it directly on the head. Hate speech should not be allowed, but who gets to define hate speech? To paraphrase Justice Potter, I don’t know what hate speech is, but I know it when I hear it. Is kinda where we are at.
You are also right is is a generational thing. We have a generation of kids that have been brought up to believe that the US constitution is an absolute document and is infallible. I can say what I want, when I want and no one can do anything about it. This is a fallacy to nth degree. While the constitution does put limits on the governments power and is quite explicit in doing so, it also grants the government way more power than people think and it has been that way since its initial ratification. Your rights can be curbed, they just cannot be curbed haphazardly. That said, it is my firm belief that constitutional arguments are not simply legal, but rather moral arguments instead.
When I was finishing high school, I read an article from Robert Bork, a rightists rightist who was nominated by Reagan for a seat on the Supreme Court that ultimately went to Kennedy. He wrote about freedom of speech, which at the time was a brewing topic. It was a changing landscape of American TV at the time. Pushing the limits, if you will. To paraphrase him, he said that you have the absolute right to spew whatever filth you deem necessary. But, you do not have the right to do at 3am on a loudspeaker.
He was effectively saying that speech can be regulated. Justices over time have ruled just that.
At focus of my argument was Milo speaking at UC Berkeley and the protests that lead to the cancellation of his talk. Later, Ann Coulter would fall to the same forces. [Milo is a walking contadiction. He is an openly gay Jewish Greek, who openly and proudly supports the Golden Dawn, an ultra-rightwing nationalist group that wants an ethnically pure Greece and hates Jews and homosexuals.] Milo has been open about and is seemingly supportive of man/boy love. A viewpoint that lost him his gig at Breitbart. Ann Coulter has view points so outrageous, I think they are just random thoughts that sprout into her head. Her views are so radical, I think Fox News brings her on just so they can say “See? We are not so bad!” Even Breitbart won’t give her a platform.
I would tend to disagree that not allowing them to speak, or domains shutting down hate groups, is a “slippery slope.” As with domains, Twitter, FB, Forumosa, or whatever it is simply a private group doing what is legally afforded to them as long as it is applied consistently. You cannot say “no cursing!” then allow some people to curse, while restricting others.
Sorry for so long reply.