That may be true, but remember that if you have the right to host whatever legal content you wish, then the first step toward losing that right is to not defend it. Sometimes that requires defending scoundrels.
In my opinion, this is one area where the US legal system goes south. There must be a way to maintain people's legitimate right to freedom of speech that does not involve defending clearly scandalous behavior. I think people too easily buy into the lawyer's argument on this one.
It's a slippery slope. If you allow the government/courts to dictate what kinds of speech is "bad", then you are placing faith in the system that nothing not-bad will ever be seen as bad by the government/courts. The cost/risk of potentially losing freedom is perceived to be worse than stopping a few assholes saying bad things (which they probably will anyways.)
In my opinion, this is one area where the US legal system goes south. There must be a way to maintain people's legitimate right to freedom of speech that does not involve defending clearly scandalous behavior. I think people too easily buy into the lawyer's argument on this one.