Since you mention fighting words, I refer you to Ken White at Popehat: https://www.popehat.com/?s=fighting+words https://www.popehat.com/?s=fighting+words I'm

Since you mention fighting words, I refer you to Ken White at Popehat: https://www.popehat.com/?s=fighting+words https://www.popehat.com/?s=fighting+words I'm not actually familiar with the content of Milo's speeches, but I don't need to be to determine that they are not fighting words. Unless he says, "that guy in the green jacket looks like a fag, beat him up", it's probably protected speech, and your only legal recourse in the US is to say "hey, you shouldn't listen to this hate-filled jerk". Or, perhaps, "I'm not going to associate with you if you forward one more of his blog posts." Now, I'm not going say that you have an inconsistent viewpoint. The attitude of "everyone who disagrees with me should be silenced by force" has been quite popular throughout history. It's even effective from time to time. But your views would be illegal to implement in the US (as would Milo's views, as I understand them). In addition, unless you have knowledge of threats of legal action from M.Y., nothing he is doing can have "chilling effects". I suggest you look it up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect and pay attention to the part about "law or threat of legal action". In summary, the standard of free speech in the US is that you cannot use force to silence someone for the content of their speech unless it rises to the level of actual threats against specific people or an immediate incitement to riot right then and there.