It seems pretty clear, just look at the last two lines. He OBSERVES that the government through the judicial system is taking action against "hate speech" and recommends that "we should do the same". The author really ignores the true crux of the subject and that is "please DEFINE hate speech?"
He gives the example of the radio host who suggested that Glen Beck should commit suicide on TV for uttering "Obama is a RASCIST". So exactly WHO is uttering hate speech ? Not Glen Beck, in my book, who consistently uses LOGIC and FACTS to reach his conclusions. If you say both Glen and the other guy are engaging in "hate speech", then we have problem #2: Is it possible to disagree passionately and NEVER, EVER use our FREE SPEECH in a manner that takes it into YOUR DEFINITION Of hate speech ?
Frankly this path to outlawing speech that somebody (and who do we get to be an impartial judge?) may be offended by seems to be more like SILENCING the opposition than anything else. I vote for FREE SPEECH and if it offends you than get a tougher skin. The action the article writer is suggesting (in my opinion) is that we should (as any elementary teacher would put it) "self monitor" our speech, so as not to be so offensive to those who disagree with us. Yeah, right. Doesn't work in the classroom either, bub.