Aside from what you say being inconstitutional, how can you not see that no suppression of freedom of speech gives you any real benefits, nothing besides just creating more problems on top of existing ones, no matter what your political cause is?
If you hide people and prevent the people you disagree with from talking - they will just go underground and grow there. The public will just see that you have no real arguments against them (because you would have presented them) - and instead are trying to silence them.
If you want real change, you need to argue with your opponenets, not try to push them into underground.
Euro guy here, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I understand your freedom of speech it only protects you from your government. I to doesn't give me the right to spout nonsense in a private space like your living room or on twitch and not get kicked out. You also have protected classes, but that's a different story.
Social repercussion, up to casting people out of communities, can actually be a highly valuable since very effective tool in such situations. Humans are social beings, after all. But you are right, it must be used sparingly, otherwise those outcast will form communities of their own and reinforce each other.
>If you hide people and prevent the people you disagree with from talking - they will just go underground and grow there.
To what extent is this historically true? In fact, the big instances (like the actual Nazis) were very much silenced by force; the Nazi State was not defeated through the Jews debating them. From Sartre,
> “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
Maybe J.S. Mill's ideal would be better of revised rather than assumed.
If you hide people and prevent the people you disagree with from talking - they will just go underground and grow there. The public will just see that you have no real arguments against them (because you would have presented them) - and instead are trying to silence them.
If you want real change, you need to argue with your opponenets, not try to push them into underground.