Idiot is me being charitable. People who believe that speech should be limited specifically because that speech may engender beliefs in others that they disagre

Idiot is me being charitable. People who believe that speech should be limited specifically because that speech may engender beliefs in others that they disagree with are idiots at best, and malicious authoritarians at worst. This isn't free speech absolutism, I'm not advocating for unrestricted misinformation, propaganda, or calls to violence. I'm stating that people who believe that "wrongthink" is not permissible are idiots, and I have zero interest in trying to change their minds (at least over the internet). As an example, I've encountered feminists who think that the very real issues men struggle with in America should not be discussed because the very act of discussing those issues might make some people think "hey, in some ways men are worse off then women" and this would influence those people to not support feminism. I'm not trying to pick on feminism here, it's just an example. If these feminists thought that the issues men face aren't real, or that the issues women face are so immeasurably worse as to make men's issue immaterial, that would be one thing and I would be happy to explain to them why I think they're wrong (and listen to their rebuttals). But I have no interest in engaging with someone who thinks that rhetoric can be suppressed and ignored just because it's inconvenient for them and their cause.