If speech is violence and the state is the organization which successfully establishes a monopoly on violence, you end up back where we were before Mills and Voltaire. The state choosing the truth as a matter of utility rather than accuracy and criticism persecuted with power. Countless reasons to shut down speech is violence arguments as totalitarian trash.
I would rather reverse the discussion: what are the arguments in favour of the restriction of speech?
If speech is violence and the state is the organization which successfully establishes a monopoly on violence, you end up back where we were before Mills and Voltaire. The state choosing the truth as a matter of utility rather than accuracy and criticism persecuted with power. Countless reasons to shut down speech is violence arguments as totalitarian trash.
Unfettered free speech is messy and necessary for a free society.