I fail to see the reasoning in this statement. To me free speech is more likely to incite violence than it is to prevent it.
There are two fundamental ways that men and women can deal with one another: reason or force. The fact that some people will resort to force if they want something that someone else has or hear something that offends them just goes to show how far we need to progress as a species and that we need a new philosophy. What we need to do instead of limiting speech is to put those people in jail who initiate force, not punish those who are peaceful but hold ideas that others don't agree with. That is the proper purpose of a government, to protect individual rights. Right now in America, we have a situation where people equate speech with violence and therefore violence is acceptable in response to speech that is unpopular or even flat out wrong. The people in power are paralyzed with fear because they have no ideas to counter it. They are intellectually bankrupt.
My own philosophy, Objectivism, does have those ideas. We recognize that in all cases the initiation of force is wrong, immoral, and evil because force and reason are incompatible and man's means of survival is Reason, the faculty which identifies and integrates the material of the senses. A proper government, therefore, is one that never initiates force but stands ready to retaliate against those that do. Other than that the government should be hands off, leaving people free to think, trade, argue, persuade, disagree, and generally pursue their own good by their own means so long as they don't interfere with others doing the same. In other words to remove coercive force from human relations. And there most certainly should not be a government "ministry of truth" or disinformation.
Saying that we should limit speech because it might insight some to violence is like saying we should ban cars because some people are reckless with them or drink and drive. It's like saying we should not have banks because some people rob them or we should force everyone to drive crappy cars because driving fancy ones might incite some people to steal them. No, we punish those who steal, who commit fraud, rape, assault, threaten, abuse, kidnap, or otherwise engage in the initiation of force. That's precisely what the founding fathers meant when they said "and to secure these rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) governments are instituted among men". This was a radical new idea.
That's my two cents, anyway.
