Yeah, and I don't disagree with you. If they were successful, that's where this ends up. But in the specific context of this discussion (should speech be banned

Yeah, and I don't disagree with you. If they were successful, that's where this ends up. But in the specific context of this discussion (should speech be banned), saying that speech should be banned if it indirectly leads to violence is a very hard standard to enforce. Should communist speech be prohibited because establishing a communist state probably requires a dictatorship of the proletariat? Should BLM be restricted from speaking because one of their members views their plight as hopeless and decides to take violent action? Should left-wing organization supporting a "diversity of tactics" be banned because it explicitly allows for violent acts without suggesting or condoning them? I want to be very clear that it's possible to think these groups should not exist and to disagree as strongly as possible with their message, while still believing they should not be legally restricted from making an argument that does not explicitly call for violence.