If one has to equate information with direct physical violence before arguing for suppression of information, what does that say about the validity of the argument? If it's so important to suppress certain information one should be able to argue for this in terms of information qua information, without having to falsely equate it to literal physical violence first.

It's also quite constructive to conceive of "disinformation" as information (as opposed to physical violence) because it leads naturally to the realization that the remedy should be in the realm of information as well (education, establishing trust, trustworthy or verifiable information from trusted sources, etc..), instead of violence (suppression, shutting down, imprisonment).