Is it? Really?
Many people disagree. Many countries[0] have laws against hate speech. In Canada, for example:
> it is a criminal act to "advocate or promote genocide" — to call for, support, encourage or argue for the killing of members of a group based on colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.[1]
"Stirring up or inciting hatred" is also against the law.
I have no doubt that The Daily Stormer would be illegal in Canada.
Also illegal, under another part of the Criminal Code, is assault; including "nazi punching". Not everyone who thinks websites like this should be shut down support physical violence against those they disagree with.
There is no slippery slope here -- shutting down hateful propaganda is not the same as full blown censorship: a provision prevents "people from being charged with a hate crime if their statements are truthful or the expression of a religious opinion."[1]
I know that might sound scary to some of you (who gets to decide what is true, or what is a religious belief?), but in Canada, we're lucky enough to have reasonable judges. The system works pretty well -- check out [1] for a few examples, and you can see what you think of the courts decisions.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
[1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/when-is-it-hate-speech-7-signi...
I can do the former while declining, no matter what you are willing to pay, to do the latter.
Free speech is not entitlement to others’ active collaboration in transmitting your speech.
Supporting someone's right to free speech doesn't mean enabling them to.
I support the right of the Nazis to voice their (IMHO completely absurd) speech, but if I had a business, I'd have guidelines against that type of speech in my business. In the same way, I wouldn't welcome one into my house. None of those measures infringes on their freedom of speech.