Silencing the Haters - wisest course of action?

On silencing the haters

So recently on a thread that was not my own, someone stated:
“Uh, no, when someone's speech is a call to violence, you have an ethical imperative to silence them.” I asked her about her ‘ethical imperative’ but she did not reply.

So I will vent my thoughts here.

Why? Is the big question I would ask. First, how do you know if theirs is a call to violence if you refuse to hear them? If you silence them before they speak? What if it is a justified call to violence? Why is it the Antifa Pack can make calls to violence, but those who do not identify as Antifa cannot?

And here is the big question…. WHY?? How is it ethical to use violence to silence someone for their supposed or possible call to violence? Is that not in fact answering their call to violence with violence?

Here is what I don’t understand…. are these people concerned they may be swayed by racists speech and will suddenly say “Hey you know what? That hateful, idiot racist is right! I have been wrong all along! I think I will switch sides and abandon my deep seated morals and become a hateful violent racist myself!” Are they concerned they are so intellectually and morally weak that the speech is a potential danger to their beliefs?

Or, do they hold that they personally are perfectly capable of filtering out hate speech, but others such as myself need to be protected from it, because we lack the ability to defeat such ignorant concepts using logic, reason, derision and compassion, or a combination of these tools? Do they silence others to protect ME? And if so, who appointed them to such an authoritarian role without discussion or consent?

Personally, I do not think it is the fear of them being converted. For one they seem very inflexible. For two, the base hateful ideas they generally oppose, (hatred, racism, white supremacy) are all vile and despicable. So I doubt any of them would admit to a fear of being converted, and certainly there is no evidence that any of their members have been converted by the speech from the opposing camps. So that one doesn’t make sense.

The second one is also something they would never admit. It is fundamentally a complete abandonment of the concept of equality and self-governance which they strongly espouse. It is deeply insulting and judgmental. It reveals them to be uber-authoritarian and would lose them a great deal of support. “We are capable of recognizing and dismissing hate speech, but you are not, so we get to silence others with opposing views, for your own good!” Do you think that would actually fly? Imagine if this concept was applied to something like music? A bunch of dub-steppers and mumble-rappers declaring that only they know what music is good, so they get to determine what music you may listen to. How would that go you think?

There is only one remaining option. They simply lack the intellectual ability to defeat those ideas with superior ideas of their own using discussion and debate. They lack the emotional control ability to face such ideas and not become emotionally triggered. They have never learned how to control their own emotions, and have been conditioned into getting their way by throwing temper tantrums. It worked at home, it worked at school, and now they expect this strategy to be accepted by the public at large. They have been raised in an entitlement environment where them being upset meant someone must change something. So now they see the world in good and bad, and those who appease them are good, and those who oppose them are bad. And those who question them, are seen as being unwilling to appease them, therefore they are bad too and all they know to do to get their way, is throw tantrums.

Of course that is all only my opinion, and I am willing to hear opposing views and discuss them reasonably and rationally.