Dillahunty is strawmanning the hate speech laws (at least the one we have in Finland) pretty badly. I do have my suspicions about if that kind of law would work in the American context with only two parties and an extremely politicized judicial system. These things make abusing the law or adjusting it to make it more vulnerable to abuse much easier. If any party or coalition would have enough political capital and power to change the legal definitions of protected groups (this definition applies to many laws) and/or what is "agitation against"* in a way that makes the law oppressive we would be in deep doo-doo since they would have broken our system so badly that not having so called hate speech law would not matter much. They could just make that law or any other oppressive law by themselves.
Also, he is just repeating the same arguments about punching Nazis and violence in general that have been presented and brings nothing new to this discussion.
* The current definition is dehumanization by either use of language (comparing to vermins etc.) or lying about facts to make generalizations. This is my, a non-lawyer's, approximate memory about the definition. The actual terms are defined in the law books and parliament's documentation when they made the law in a manner that makes it clear for a legal expert what the intention is.