Comment by ckw

  Just because two "bad" people liked something in a certain 
  way does not mean that "good" people must therefore like it 
  the converse way. Both Goebbels and Stalin may also have 
  liked butter and jam on their toast, but that doesn't mean I 
  should eat toast with just butter.

Chomsky is not claiming either of these people were bad, he's saying they were uncontroversially opposed to free speech, so as to highlight the defining characteristic of support: tolerance of views one finds odious. It doesn't really seem like you disagree, you just are not for free speech:

  I do not think it is unwise to regulate free speech. It is 
  not wise for a civilisation, with laws, to allow people to 
  flaunt their breaking of, or desire to break, said laws, 
  without some legal consequence.

Which is fine. Just understand your position.

  I wonder if Chomsky would readily be the one to grant them 
  the freedom to speak openly about their preferences for 
  murdering and raping people, from his armchair.

I have zero doubt he would, and have no qualms saying that I do as well.