By your own exposition, this is the simple and effective solution that's inline with what I stated. Let freedom reign because the good already solves for the bad, and has done so for the entirety of civilization. Do we really need more?
My thinking is more so from a position of minimizing suffering, and that finding a way to reduce the power of bad actors may help minimize wars and other conflicts and reduce suffering. There's obviously the big counterpoint that attempts to reduce power of bad actors may lead to increased corruption that in turn worsens society that if it hadn't been attempted.
But that's why this is just another example of a complex problem.
On the other hand, human history has shown that political parties will attempt to censor anything they can. We can see this with the alternative realities constructed by Fox News/MSNBC and we can see it in totalitarian dictatorships like North Korea. I am not aware of any counterexamples of a country where the government does not attempt to influence the narrative.
They came to power by silencing their opponents through force, political posturing, manipulation, and opportunistic behavior.
In fact the Nazis squashed free speech in many ways, and used violence, threats, and coercion to make others silence their friends.
Frankly had free speech been protected and valued by any means. We may not have had a third reich.
Let the fascists speak, let them out theirselves. So that common people can distance themselves.
And unfortunately, once they have power, there is very little that normal people can do to ensure that they will obey by the rules that got them there (i.e. free speech). I would argue that there was no way to prevent the Nazis from squashing free speech except by preventing them from coming to power - and this is true with many malicious actors. Unfortunately, that means we have to balance the need for free speech with the need to prevent malicious groups from coming to power.
Ergo, the Paradox of Tolerance.
This is where the second amendment shines isn't it?
Don't you think that's unfair by nature? How do you justify it?
It's just a matter of how you weigh such considerations: https://www.utilitarianism.net/types-of-utilitarianism