[fatherzine]

This is poorly formulated. Using speech to make social / political / legal / economical arguments doesn't violate anyone's right to exist.

Generally speaking, pernicious "speech" is not the speech itself, rather targeting the social network of the victim with slanderous messaging.

For a simple example, somebody plastering their ex's nudes into their ex's linkedin network.

For another example, pernicious forms of cancel culture, where pressure groups take pleasure in contacting the employer of the victim and threaten reputational damage (scandal) unless they fire the poor sap.

In these cases is not the "speech" that is a problem, but the targeted malicious slandering.