Flynn!

Is violence an acceptable consequence for speech, in your view?

Very acceptable.

And who in your opinion gets to decide what speech is deserving of violence?

What?

Oh sorry, I misread. I thought you asked for an example of speech that deserved a violent reaponse. Civilized society decides. And, most importantly, history decides.

So a mob then, what you are arguing for is mob rule.

You betcha.

"You can have an opinion, except if you say anything we don't like, regardless of whether it's a moderate opinion or not, we'll make your life difficult, putting you in a situation in which you you don't know if you can speak or not."

That is exactly the kind of peaceful silence we want most. Make bigots afraid to speak.

And who. Decides. What. Is. Bigotry.

There's only one kind of person who quibbles over such definitions...

That's a very mob based mentality, "you're either with us or against us". I'm arguing for everyone to be able to speak, left and right, you're arguing for people you disagree with being scared into silence. I would say that is unethical.