I am fully in favor of giving them zero air time. Take away their voice and you take away a great deal of their power and influence. I shouldn't have to turn on the TV and hear some bigoted nazi talk about his values because of some delusional idea of free speech and equality. I love Canada because the culture here has decided that we can make one exception to free speech because we all agree that hate speech is sub-human and not equal to anything civilized.
There's is absolutely no benefit to allowing hate marches to take place. None.
To the contrary, there is a significant benefit. First, it alerts larger society to the existence of these people with extreme views. This permits society to coalesce in a countermovement that marginalizes and excludes this movement from mainstream society. Second, it affords larger society to public denounce the movement, the people, and their beliefs, which is important to minimizing those people participating in a "hate march." Third, it educates the successive generations of the deplorable and rejected views of those engaged in hate speech and perpetuates for future generations the marginalization of those groups. This results in the group and people with these views lacking "power and influence."
and vulnerable groups who are on the receiving end of that hate have to be exposed to that crap.
What "crap" are they receiving? It is words! WORDS! This is not an instance of hate speech inflicting serious bodily injury on them or their property. It is just words! The "crap" is just words. Having to hear unpleasant speech, distasteful speech, speech one finds unpalatable, is an inherent part of life! But the speech is not life threatening, the speech is not physically injuring them, the speech is not damaging their property. Yes, living on this planet involves enduring, from time to time, the unfortunate inconvenience of hearing a message/speech one dislikes. The rational reply isn't to censor the message on the basis people have to hear a message they vehemently disagree with.
All they do is stoke anger, hatred and violence
So does other forms of speech. History demonstrates political speech has also resulted in violence. Religious speech has a long history of violence associated with it. Speech which angers people, invokes hatred, is not a proper justification for censoring speech. Those are emotions and a plethora of other kinds of speech, political, religious, etcetera, have also been known to invoke anger and hatred. Very little speech would exist if angering or hatred were not permitted. The "violence" is a result of people choosing how to react to the message. Punish the people choosing to resort to the violence as opposed to silencing the messenger. After all, the people resorting to violence are the ones threatening or engaging in physical harm but the words of the messenger do not.
. Hate groups are a minority but when they come out to march, everyone in the nation has to hear about it. It gets 24/7 media coverage
Yes indeed, but the 24/7 media coverage is precisely and exactly because they are understood as "nuts." The media coverage is not positive. The media coverage is negative. They are portrayed as crazy, illogical, primates, and when they speak they only confirm what is perceived, that they are stupid. This one benefit of allowing them to express their message of hate. They just convince the rest of the world that their views are bankrupt, their ideology irrational, their beliefs illogical, and they are collectively a group of morons. That is a benefit.
Take away their voice and you take away a great deal of their power and influence.
Power and influence? They do not have any power and influence. They cannot possibly be deprived of something they already lack. And why do they lack power and influence? Because their beliefs and views are derided as moronic, illogical, and irrational, and every time they exercise their free speech rights they confirm to the rest of the world their profound stupidity. As a result, society collectively marginalizes them and by doing so, has denied them "power and influence."
If you don't like it, then take your ball and go home
Maybe you should keep your ball and not leave home because your argument favoring the deprivation of a free speech right is not a rational argument at the moment. Your argument can be distilled into three offered justifications for censoring hate speech.
1. The target groups of the hate speech would/could be exposed to speech they find unpleasant.
2. Censoring hate speech deprives the group of "power and influence."
3. Hate and anger
None compelling justification for censoring hate speech for reasons previously noted.
