The phrasing of "words can be violence" is so simple that of course, many people are going to agree with that, because in many cases "words" are the direct caus

The phrasing of "words can be violence" is so simple that of course, many people are going to agree with that, because in many cases "words" are the direct cause of violence. Outright incitement is the most obvious one, direct or otherwise. Meddlesome priests beware. If I keep banging on about how Hillary Clinton is literally raping children in the basement of a pizza restaurant and that all the police are in on it and refuse to do anything, then it's entirely rational and moral to do something about it. Similarly if you genuinely believe an election is rigged and "stolen", then again, it's entirely rational and moral to do something about it. Of course actually believing these outrageous claims is rather less rational. But once you do accept them, then action is quite logical and morally defensible. If anything, inaction would be the immoral choice – evil triumphing when good men do nothing and all that. I find this kind of free speech absolutism naïve beyond belief. I also think that if the question phrased with more nuance, they would fine less "shocking" results.