Indeed. I would argue those examples are not protected "free speech", since their intent is to cause imminent harm.
But point taken. I did misspeak when I said "Calmly stated ideas". I meant, specifically, any idea that is not intended to cause imminent harm. Imminent being the operative word, there. So, to my mind, "I think minorities should be turned into lampshades." is reprehensible and worthy of social sanction, but should not be suppressed. "You should kill yourself!" to a suicidal person is dangerous and potentially criminal.
Let's turn it around:
Imagine someone expresses a racist idea, and then the universe splits in two.
In one universe, the person gets a punch in the nose and their books are burned.
In the other universe, a centrist says, "that idea is reprehensible, and here's where you have failed..." and then outlines ethical, philosophical and scientific objections to the racist idea. There is a calm discussion.
In which universe is the racist more likely to consume an underground press of unchallenged racist ideas? In which universe is the racist more likely to change their mind? Which universe is more dangerous, more likely to lead to violence?
From a centrist point of view, the suppression of stupid ideas is more likely to be dangerous, than having them out in the open.