Foremost, our overarching desire and heartfelt request to any counter-protesters who attend our events, is to engage us in a verbal debate, not in physical combat. We hold our rallies, protests and events, expressly to exercise our First and Second Amendment Rights. We have something to say and we have a Right to say it! Although few today will agree, the First Amendment protects what those on the left might deem as "hate speech" and it does so for a very good reason. Hate and love are both subjective, the phrase "I love Jesus" usually would not be considered "hate speech" to a Christian, but it might be considered as such to a Muslim, or especially to a Jew, as Jews believe Jesus is in hell, being punished with boiling hot excrement. The very definition of what the left currently denotes as "hate speech" can be quite broad, is frequently changing and constantly growing, often including unpleasant but factual statements, to which those on the left may take offense. Hate speech can never become an objective classification, therefore it must always remain protected. This edict is in the best interest of everyone, on both the right and the left. Even simply defining "hate speech" becomes effectively impossible, since it is subjective, thus any speech that doesn't cause imminent physical harm (example: yelling "fire" in a movie theater) should never be restricted.
If legislative definitions are ever enacted by the left on precisely what constitutes "hate speech", these will of course be codified by a majority, at the expense of a minority, at the expense of what the minority group believes to be THEIR Constitutional rights! Surely you will agree, that you are NOT in favor of disenfranchising ANY minority group, even a minority group that you may despise.
Because of their non-objective nature, any proposed "hate speech offenses" may be used by the majority in power, to restrict any criticism by the minority, or to change outcomes of elections, by suppressing any minority views. Social progress has always depended upon the protection (not eradication) of free speech, as "hate speech" is so loosely defined, malleable and circumstance-dependent.
Institutions can not ban free speech without unintentionally setting terms that would later backfire and stagnate social progress. To be frank, the First Amendment protection of speech, no matter how hateful you may think it to be, excluding of course true threats, libelous or fighting words, is our Bill of Rights' most important liberty, which is why it was placed first among all of our Rights, giving rise to both a cost and a benefit that Americans must accept, in order to reap freedom's fullest rewards.