In short, no. There are so many things that have to be unpacked from the question, however, let me elaborate.
We are talking about hate speech, not hate “crimes,” the latter of which does not exist. There are only crimes; why they do them doesn’t make them worse or better.
Hate is an emotion. You are not entitled to receive or feel certain emotions from others. People have a right to love as much as they do to hate. What they do with those emotions is where it can cross the NAP line.
The term hate speech begs the question as to who determines hate speech from normal speech. No one who believes in banning hate speech thinks they engage in it or are even capable of it. And it always applies to people with whom they disagree on issues. The hypocrisy and double-standards are hard to miss.
Example: Someone writes or speaks ill of me. This is not a crime. They say they want to kill me or hurt me. This is still not a crime, because it is a desire, not a declaration of intent.
Later, they actually say or write they are going to kill me or cause me harm.
This is a crime. Depending on the context of the circumstances, I have a right to use force to prevent it.
The question doesn’t address whether “hate” speech is morally, ethically, or religiously defensible. Libertarians are only concerned about the proper use of aggression and force, and it is not justifiable if the reason is only because of what someone else is saying and not what they are doing or plan to do.