I think the damages are clear enough when eleven people are murdered.
Speech is never "just speech": it enables and compels people to take actions. That's why free speech is important in the first place. In the same spirit, that's why free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
You can't have your cake and eat it. If speech doesn't have power over people, why do authoritarian governments fear it and seek to curtail that freedom?
Speech can motivate, encourage, inspire, disgust, leave indifferent, irritate, and so on -- but people who act on a given idea do it of their own free will. What authoritarian government fears is that people use their independent minds, allow disagreement and debate, and choose to act in defense of their freedoms.
A distinction without difference. Some people can use their independent minds to disagree, debate, and then decide to defend their freedom by cleansing their country of lesser races. That's what we all fear.
I've heard this kind of argument a lot. I heard it when someone was defending the Charlottesville tiki torchers surrounding a synagogue with torches as "free speech" because they were standing on a public sidewalk. By that logic, it's okay for me to point a loaded gun in your face, as long as I don't actually pull the trigger. That intimidation and threats are just "free speech".
Speech is never "just speech": it enables and compels people to take actions. That's why free speech is important in the first place. In the same spirit, that's why free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.