The real issue comes down to how “Hate Speech” is defined. If it’s “words I don’t like” then that is tyrannical. If it’s “You can’t incite people to commit violent acts on peaceful people without consequences” that is a completely valid definition. I’d like to see more of the context surrounding the interview before passing judgment on a single sentence.
Discussion
Stopping incitement to violence is just another excuse for tyranny. War mongering politicians and media opinions already do it on a daily basis, but they're not the target. Laws can't be fuzzy and "incitement to violence" is very much up to (political) interpretation, and that's why they push that angle. Don't buy it.
I agree with you that it is a slippery slope and that politicians are the worst offenders. however, I take significant issue with the idea that all forms of “speech” should enjoy complete immunity from consequences. I’m not saying that is your argument and I don’t think the Federal Gov should be regulating much of anything. But I do believe a nuanced argument can be had around the idea of groups regulating speech of individuals on some level and in some way. Ideally without state sponsored violence.