There isn't unconditional free speech, and never has been, and perhaps rightly so.

You only need to look at certain social media to observe what happens when we approximate to that.

You could make an equally if not more convincing argument for saying if certain types of expressed views are not opposed, it's more likely those promoting those views will become more embolden as a result.

That seems to be true currently in the US.

David Duke said to Trump that he should look in the mirror and remember who put him there, which he appears to have done. As usual Trump claims not to have met or known of Dukes last year in the primaries, which is odd because he's on record previously indicating he was fully aware of Duke and others

Bannon, Trump's chief Strategist previously ran Breitbart, an ultra right wing organ. Bannon's wife in sworn statement, testifies to his anti-Semitic views, among others.
From numerous sources Bannon is a prime leaker within the White House partly against Kushner who is jewish.

Here the likes of Farage says he's opposed to such racial views, claiming when he was leader of ukip he refused membership to anyone associated with such views
Which is odd because he's also reported to have expressed the same views in public and private, and so did numerous other members of ukip at the time.

He also claimed he would not  sit with certain (what he termed) 'far right groups' in the EU, which from my understanding it is more correct to say others didn't want to sit with him
He did in the previous Parliament sit with the Northern League, some of those MEP's expressed the view that Anders Breivik had some fine ideas
The joint chair of that group with Farage went further and said Breviks view's were in defence of Western Civilisation
The EU gives such groups about 2.5 million funding which Farage has used in part for personal bodyguards for himself, and other personal items There is/was no requirement for him to align with any group except if he didn't he would lose the 2.5 million, which he clearly wanted

Many people for what were probably good reasons at the time, kept silent in Nazi Germany, it didn't stop what happened
A diarist in the US Civil War wrote when Sherman was marching through Georgia that she was afraid of what the North would do if they found the prisoners at Andersonville. Silence didn't help there and you would be hard pressed to distinguish those prisoners visually from those at Bergen Belson or Auschwitz.

We fought a war against Nazism so I see no equivalence in that act