>by giving somebody freedom of speech, you cause crimes to happen and by doing that you rob victims of these crimes of their freedoms instead.
>For example if you give freedom to nazis to present their opinions publicly on the internet, then some of them get radicalized on such websites and they will go and murder
whose fault is it when a person gets radicalized and commits violence? were they subjected to mind-control? of course not. it's up to the individual to judge what is right and wrong and make decisions. otherwise, you're taking away their agency by depriving them of information and channels of communication. and ultimately, that's what pro-censorship ideologues want; they want to dictate to others what they're allowed to say/think/do/consume/etc. they want to impose their morals and judgments onto everyone else, because they believe they know best, and they consider their fellow competent adults to be stupid children. it all comes back to the same place.
to clarify, Free Speech means that you have the right to express yourself freely, as long as you're not violating anyone else's rights. inciting violence or counseling someone to commit a crime are NOT free speech. however, rights are strictly defined, and this still allows substantial freedom. you don't have the right to not be offended or outraged at things. we have to allow any speech that doesn't explicitly violate rights, including hate speech or promotion of ideologies that you consider dangerous. otherwise, it's the tip of the wedge, and the entire right gets eroded. likewise, even the worst criminals still get their legal rights (presumption of innocence, timely trial by jury, no double jeopardy, etc) without exception, for the same reason.
btw, what this write-up says about nazi ideology could just as easily be applied to radical islam, if anything you could make a better case for censoring and proscribing Islam using this same disingenuous argument. but of course, the neo-marxists won't do that. they're not interested in philosophy, only in using it tendentiously to push their particular ideology forward.