>when your drink is in my face That's assault. One could quite easily say that demanding the ability to hit people with something because you don't like what t

>when your drink is in my face That's assault. One could quite easily say that demanding the ability to hit people with something because you don't like what they say is "childish entitlement." There's a reason why public protests are governed around "touching/hitting an opponent" as the line to not be crossed, and why pepper-spraying someone is for self-defense and not for disagreement. "Social consequences" should mean disassociation or loss of reputation -- not physical attack. It's a dangerous precedent to allow the state to lose that monopoly on the use of physical violence; that way lies lynch mobs. As to your point about surveillance states and ideological watchlists, I agree with you that those are often violations of the principle of free speech. I'd rather argue against those rather than use them as precedent to throw the whole thing away.