That narrative sounds like someone played a game of telephone with this CATO institute essay: https://www.cato.org/policy-report/mayjune-2015/war-free-exp... I'll leave it at that. HN readers are perfectly capable of reading the history themselves and appreciating the complexities.
You don't need one article. Just a basic grasp of history. We in the "West" are today a more liberal society, especially with regards to speech, than ever in history. Stuff that would have gotten you locked up in 1920 will not get you locked up today. If you don't understand that, or question it, or seriously believe that there were more political freedoms in the 1920s rather than today, then God help whomever was your history teacher.
Yes, and what that means is that today's broad interpretation of the First Amendment (in the USA) is actually very recent in origin -- Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) to be exact. Far from being "originalist", it reads intent into the Founders that wasn't there, as some of those same Founders would go on to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts, which wouldn't pass muster today.
It may be time to consider whether the experiment of being permissive when it comes to hate speech has been a failure that has caused more harm than good to society and its citizens.