I guess it depends on what you mean by giving them a platform. Equal access to the commons seems like a requirement of tolerance. But you can think that anarchists to neo-Nazis must be allowed to march while also being fine with private enterprise shuttering their storefronts and removing their websites, and with citizens pressuring or lobbying those private institutions to do so, and with arguing that the media should not hold to some precept of false balance and instead report the ugly truth of these groups.
I'd say that most of the fallout from Charlottesville has shown that free speech has worked. I disagree with the absolutist stance on the Confederate monument question, but it's something that each locality should be able to decide, and plenty of cities and states are saying they want nothing to do with it and acted swiftly to bring them down. Pressure on the internet has for once led to demonstrable results, with social media platforms and CDNs cutting ties with neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Much work remains to be done, especially with the obstacles in the federal government, but it seems to actually be tipping in the right direction for the first time in months.
Spencer and his company had their say, and Americans have responded in kind. They have basically shown up as Gamergate Part 2: a reactionary movement that has managed to spur action in the exact opposite direction from their intent. Way more Confederate memorials would have remained up if they hadn't done such a good job of showing that they are happy to be hateful people animated by the past.
Where I find myself conflicted is on the question of the permit denials. On one hand, if these rallies are resulting in violence it seems like that reaches the natural limit of the aforementioned tolerance, and so it makes sense to shut them down as a precaution (the general welfare at that point taking precedence over their speech rights, as one's rights naturally end where others' begin.) On the other hand, the promise of violence can basically be used as a cudgel against any demonstration, including far more valid and progressive ones.