Views lead to actions. You can not draw a line between them and hope people will happily stand on one side of it.
If you allow intolerant views, you normalise intolerance. If you normalise intolerance, you ALSO normalise intolerant acts, and they WILL follow naturally.
You don't have to hope for anything. You just wait until they try to carry out the action (paying particular attention to those who have previously expressed views that are likely to lead to it), and physically prevent that.
If you normalize cracking down on views on the basis that they're intolerant, the people who make that determination end up with a lot of unchecked power. In France, for example, you can be jailed for wearing a t-shirt that says "boycott Israel" today - it's hate speech. In Germany, many flags used in Rojava are banned as extremist symbols. And note that despite all these laws, RN and AfD still exist and thrive.
Yeah, no, you can't physically prevent that, not without a perfect panopticon police state.
If you allow intolerance to spread, it WILL, without fail, hurt people. Sometime, immense number of people. This is not theoretical. It happens, again and again, and the only way to prevent it is to oppose intolerance at every stage.
Your abstract ideology of absolutely free speech is not in any way worth the immense pain and suffering that will, inevitably, follow.
On the contrary - you can't prevent intolerance from spreading without a perfect Panopticon police state. That's precisely why Europe is failing at it so badly, despite all their hate speech and extremism laws. Organizations like AfD can dog-whistle in public to avoid crossing legal limits, while still fundamentally communicating the same ideas. You could crack down on that if you had a pervasive surveillance state monitoring all private communication, but they aren't willing to go there.
On the other hand, policing actions is much easier, because the more consequential ones are also the more prominent - you don't need a surveillance state to deal with them, you just need a reaction force.
No, I am arguing that everyone can and should do all they can to condemn hatred. That regular people should make sure there are consequences for being a hateful bigot. And that people should not get tricked by "both-sides" bullshit, or empty appeals to "freedom of speech".
Don't be friends with a racist. Make sure they understand their views are not acceptable. Do your part today.
That does not at all seem like the constructive thing to do. Generally speaking, ostracizing groups of people for their beliefs leads to further polarization, and more extreme views.
In my experience, people are seldom racist for the sake of being hateful. Rather than applying an arbitrary label to someone so that you can lazily dismiss them as evil (which is just as bigoted as the bigotry you claim to oppose), it's better to find the underlying cause of the apparent racism, and addressing that concretely instead.
This is a justification for exterminatory politics. As a person with views to the right of centre the historical record suggests I would at best end up losing everything I own and probably end up in a re-education camp or dead in the event of a communist revolution. By your logic I would be justified in quite extreme measures to combat communism in the present day.
If you allow intolerant views, you normalise intolerance. If you normalise intolerance, you ALSO normalise intolerant acts, and they WILL follow naturally.