A threat of violence is not violence. It doesn't matter if it's against the law. Everything that is illegal isn't violence. My contention in this conversation is finite. I pointed out that no violence was prevented by muting. That was the limit of my claim.
Here's the relevant portion of my last response to @amico:
"Either the speech undertaken wasn't actual violence, or it was. If it was, muting the speaker afterwards didn't prevent violence, which had already occurred. However, speech isn't violence, it's communication. Since speech can't be violence, muting the speaker can't prevent violence."
"Either way, no violence was prevented. I am a fan of factual reality, and prefer it non-violently. That's why no harm came to anyone or anything in the making of this comment. All my comments have that feature."
"All comments do."
You do not respond to my claim. You have changed the subject. You're apparently claiming, if you're responding to what I actually said, that if something is illegal it is violence - or you're not responding to what I did say at all.
Do read what I said. Either respond, or state outright that you are going to change the subject, because that's what you did.
Please reconsider your comment.