[tpmoney]

The part that goes in [...] reads:

> In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

Hard to describe posting awful garbage on twitter as "[forbidding] their followers to listen to rational argument" or answering those arguments "by the use of their fists or pistols". One might make the argument that it isn't "[meeting] us on the level of rational argument", but one could easily make the argument that all of twitter by it's very nature of tossing bumpersticker sized sound bites over the walls at each other isn't anything remotely approacing "rational argument".

[malermeister]

They literally shot up a gay club the other day...

[tpmoney]

And so you use force and violence on that person. What other groups are "guilty by association" that we should curtail their speech because some of their members have committed acts of violence in the name of their movement? Antifa? Communists? Environmentalists? BLM? Socialists? Anarchists? Union organizers? Can you confidently assert that you belong to no groups such that if the political winds changed you'd be comfortable allowing your opponents the authority to censor your group's speech if any members commit violence?