Is there a limit to freedom of expression?

Recently in Brazil there was a wave of protests against the presenter Monark (a kind of Joe Rogan), who commanded the best known Podcast in the country called Flow Podcast.

The fact that happened is that after almost 4 hours of conversation, with a lot of drinking and marijuana on his part, they raised a question about freedom of expression and what should be allowed or not.

Monark said that since there is a communist party in Brazil (PC do B, Partido Comunista do Brasil), there should also be a Nazi party. The interviewee said that it shouldn't because it is a line of thought that seeks to exterminate another race. (Which in fact it is, just like communism).

However, for not knowing how to argue correctly, Monark was labeled by Twitter as Nazi and canceled, losing sponsors, and leaving the post of presenter of the program, having guests asking to remove the videos that participated in the air.

So I would like to bring some points about what happened, some views of mine and know your views on the subject.

I'll leave the tweet with the video and translate the sentences for you.

Monark: "The radical left has a lot more space than the radical right, in my opinion, and I think both should have space. I'm crazier than all of you. I think the Nazi should have the Nazi party, recognized by law ."

Tábata: "I don't think so. Freedom of expression ends where your expression puts the other person's life at risk."

Monark: "Don't people have the right to be idiots?"

Tábata: "Nazism is against the Jewish population. You put an entire population at risk."

Monark: "In what way? When it's a minority, it doesn't."

Tábata: "In what way? Are we going to talk about the Holocaust?"

Monark: "But that was when it was a majority."

Tábata: "So anarchy? Doesn't it have to be law?"

Monark: "I think freedom of speech doesn't have to be law. It has to release everything."

Tábata: "Not when it hurts the freedom of the other".

(...)

Monark: "The point is, if a guy wants to be an anti-Jew, he should have the right to be."

Tábata: "I don't think so."

Monark: "How not? Are you going to kill anyone who is anti-Jewish?"

Tábata: "Not someone else's anti-life."

Monark: "Not anti-life. He doesn't like ideals."

Tábata: "Judaism is not a system of ideals, Judaism is an identity, a religion, a race."

And the conversation went on for a few more hours, but that was the bulk of the discussion that came up. It was a 4 hour conversation where Monark was drinking and smoking which was his later allegation as to why he ended up misunderstanding the way he explained his idea.

Twitter quickly canceled him and he ended up being removed from the position of presenter of the Podcast he created himself, under the threat of losing sponsors who were speaking out and saying that they disagreed and that they would withdraw their brands from the channel that currently employs 80 people.

A lot of the arguments I read, some argued that freedom of expression goes as far as freedom of others goes, and some saying that freedom of expression must be absolute.

A funny case is that the bicycle company Monark, quickly issued a note that there was no relationship with the youtuber, since their shares were falling because they thought there was some connection.

Is that you? What is your opinion on freedom of expression? Should it be absolute or not? Should people have the right to be idiots freely, or should they just be idiots inside their homes, without us knowing who they are?