Here and now I'd say that the threat of violence is by far a greater danger to free speech than those right-wing idiots that also want to limit it. At least in this thread I have seen none, while quite a few left-leaning people are trying to justify acts of violence against political dissidents.
Violence is a way to ruin a democracy, not to defend it. Elections and conviction should rather be your choice of weapons then.
To be fair: If I'd come across a person who really wants people to be "gunned down in a wal-marts" to keep his "culture pure", then you definitly would not be my major concern anymore. If I come across a Nazi or the likes, then I would see it as my job to sit down with him, ask him what went wrong during his childhood and try to get him back on track.
This adjustment is much more work than knocking out the teeth of people who got different political views. So if you have found it hard to sometimes see violence as necessary, then be assured: I propably find it even more difficult to defend democracy without this means. - I just think that it is the only way to change a society for the better in the long run...
To be fair: I probably share more ideals with you than with a White Supremacist. But I find it infinitely stupid to divide the political spectrum into just two sides. At least, if this means having Nazis on the one side and Antifa on the other. The result would be that it might seem like I had to defend right-wing militias, just because I might be a conservative (by European standards). This is stupid. I am miles away from right extremism and would never defend it. At the same time I see moderate leftists, such as
@NeonGroovyGator, as my brothers in spirit.
Either there are more than two sides to be on, or I want to divide the sides by other criteria. In my case it propably would be those who see violence against people who think differently as a legitimate means against those who believe in the power of discourse.