Who should be silenced simply because somebody doesn't like what someone else says -- even if it is hateful? How many people? What ideas should be prohibited? Who gets to decide? A majority of the people? (Remember that 50 votes in a lynch mob of 99 is a majority, but still a lynch mob.)
I think it's unfortunate that Trump even has an audience -- either on TV or in politics. (I. for one, chose to not be in his audience.) It would be much more unfortunate -- and hateful -- to silence him simply because some -- even a majority -- disagree with him.
Unanimity of thought, speech, and action is acceptable only when that unanimity is in full conformance with God's guidance. That being highly unlikely for the time being, we need the debate to pull in all directions from the Bernie Sanders Left to Ron Paul's Right in order to fall somewhere in the middle. (Based on Trump's inconsistent past and present, it's hard to predict where he'll ultimately drag the debate.)
"A function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as the are, or even stirs people to anger....That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute...is nevertheless protected against censorship." — William O. Douglas, US Supreme Court Justice (Terminiello v. City of Chicago)So, here's Tom Brokaw's perspective on free speech (Hint: It's only for those on his side of the debate):
Tom Brokaw blasts Donald Trump
This is one of the most powerful segments we've ever seen. Tom Brokaw compares Donald Trump's call to bar Muslims from America to Japanese internment, Nazi Germany, McCarthyism, and Jim Crow - and he didn't stop there. This amazing video is well worth taking a moment to watch, via NBC NewsPosted by Media Matters for America on Tuesday, December 8, 2015