That's a distinction, but not as a meaningful response to liberal neutralist complaints. That is, you're responding to an argument that something is bad because it isn't neutral in one sense, by saying "look, it's neutral in another sense." That doesn't address the form of neutrality that is said to be breached, and that is breached by a prohibition on racist speech. The proper response is to discuss whether that form of neutrality is worthwhile, or required in a liberal system (I dunno how far you'd get talking about non-liberal systems).
Commodore is complaining that limitations on free speech infringe on neutrality of aim and neutrality of justification; the ideas that the the state should not favour one conception of the good over another, and should take action justified by one conception of the good rather than another.
The best response is pointing out how a liberal society actually requires a form of perfectionism - if you want a liberal society, you must depart from neutrality of aim and neutrality of justification. To refuse to do so would create an illiberal society.