Censorship is sign of lack of arguments and typical tool for totalitarian regimes.

Also, you make conclusions based on bias. You can be racist and also violence free and vice versa.

> Also, you make conclusions based on bias. You can be racist and also violence free and vice versa.

Actually, I didn't assume they would be violent.

So they're free to discuss their beliefs in their home, car, church, coffee shop, and grocery store; but not in the public square or on the radio or via Twitter? How do you prevent the former from overriding your efforts to restrict the latter (word of mouth is the best advertising, after all)? If this censorship is to be absolute, how do you restrict the former?

I'm not trying to be facetious or obtuse, I actually don't see how this could work. Speech is a natural right, i.e., I can speak (or not) *any* thoughts irrespective of the presence or permission of government (albeit not without consequences post-hoc). Any attempt to restrict that right proactively must (at least) border on tyrannical, and that's before we even get into how it would be decided which speech is acceptable and which must be censored. After all, even the example subject we're building this conversation around has at least two extant, incompatible definitions.

> If this censorship is to be absolute, how do you restrict the former?

Yeah there's actually a super simple answer: it's not, and you don't. Why are you assuming I want to go into their homes to police what they say in private?

I didn't, actually, which is why that's the follow-on question (which, if not relevant to you, was meant for others reading to ponder).

The first question (slightly paraphrased) was:

  How do you prevent [the natural right of free speech] from overriding your efforts to restrict [speech in public fora] (word of mouth being the best advertising)?

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree. Is your intent not to limit the dissemination of "bad" (to be as broad as possible) ideas?