>Yes it is. It's the best way to fight back against speech you disagree with.

While nearly 100 years old, I think Justice Brandeis had it nailed[0]: "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_v._California

I only hope you are in the small, small, small minority. Intimidating people not to speak is not freedom of speech. You may think intimidation is good when it is attacking something you disagree with, but given enough time you will be on the receiving side.

Well, I must admit I respect you for your consistent views, although I radically disagree with you.

I only wish you not to get into the place and time where you are in the opposition to the aggressive majority. It's quite uncomfortable.

It's quite uncomfortable to watch people be radicalized by disinformation.

So you wish to suppress speech you don’t like in the absence of government power to do so. Imagine doing this to a religious persuasion and calling that support for freedom of religion.