No, I completely under the point of freedom of thought and letting people think whatever they like. My sticking point is that I believe letting some ideas being

No, I completely under the point of freedom of thought and letting people think whatever they like. My sticking point is that I believe letting some ideas being carried to fruition in reality to measure their worthiness via their consequences is an extremely flawed metric. I see some consequences as holding nothing but irreversible harm and thus outweighing any benefits free expression of those ideas may bring. I mean take anti-vaxxers for example, if enough people become anti-vaxxers and don't have their children vaccinated - herd immunity is compromised, children get sick, some of them die. I do not see how easily preventable deaths can ever be held as worth the unfettered spread of the ideas that directly contributed to them. The other gripe with consequences as the sole value metric of an idea is just because an idea doesn't work when carried out, doesn't mean the idea is discarded everyone at large. Some awful ideas keep resurfacing again and again despite all evidence to their contrary. You are right though that suppressing such opinions would have to be done by large, controlling institutions like governments or corporations. However as much as I distrust such institutions like anyone else, I think the compelling interest of society is enough to grant them the ability to censor - at least in specific instances of universally condemnable opinions like anti-vaccinations, eugenics, etc. Take from this what you will.