You're missing my point, and I really wish I could say it was a simple misunderstanding and not something else.
The point that you're missing is regarding who defines what constitutes things like "hate" speech. For example, read up on the Nazi book burnings. The logic for those was to burn literature deemed "un-German" and the books represented "decadent and corrupt" ideas. So in other words, Hitler probably would've said those books were exercising a form of hate speech. Do you think Hitler's judgment was right on that point?
Unpopular ideas, throughout history, have eventually sparked revolutionary changes in thought or society. The most prominent examples were the church vs. scientists in the high Middle Ages/early Renaissance. "The sun is in the center of the solar system with earth revolving around it" was considered heretical and by definition, that would be considered hate speech against God. Was the church right?
At the end of the day, people need to quit being babies and learn to ignore ignorant people whose views they don't agree with. I'll leave you with this: