Usually, this is an collectivist argument with no basis at all. We routinely conduct trade offs of the most eggregious consequences: Driving is ok in pretty muc

Usually, this is an collectivist argument with no basis at all. We routinely conduct trade offs of the most eggregious consequences: Driving is ok in pretty much all countries in the world, despite of horrific accident rates. Or the opposite: that we should impose security checks in airports because 1 guy had gel-based explosives in his shoe, let's collectively force everyone to take their shoes off for millions if not billions of times. These trade offs have no objectivity. They're done on a whim with the exact thinking that the OP is succumbing to. So, anytime someone makes an argument for supression of speech "for the good of the people", I am instantly cynical of their motives or their gullibility or both.