Not just liberals, but wise people in general don't think violence is the answer to speech. 

A respectable, intelligent, and respected anarcho-syndicalist once said. 

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

The liberal opposition has much less to do with the status-quo and much more to do with a commitment to liberty. 

Yes, because as World War II taught us, using non-violence to deal with the fascists really worked. Except no, it didn't. They had to be violently fought to be defeated. That was the only way that they lost.

This is not proof for anything. Fascism was a new ideology which hadn't discredited itself yet, and the conditions of the early 20th century were predisposed to it. The same is nowhere true today. By that logic you'd support American interventiknism, because many of the regimes the U.S toppled were not that much different from fascist. It is telling how much the left has a tankie problem, just as the right has an ethno-nationalist problem, when they throw out traditional leftist ideals for authoritarianism. 

I will stick to Chomsky's much more nuanced and principled view, than follow stalinist tactics of suppressing speech. 

So, you oppose the suppression of any speech, no matter what it is? Even hate speech? Calls for genocide should be allowed to be said? They don't say hate speech like that for the fun of it, they want people to follow their doctrine and act upon those beliefs. It'll cause much less harm, death and destruction stopping the hate speech in the first place instead of letting it fester and then having to deal with it when they're already heavily armed and aggressive.

Let them both fight to the death until one side emerges victorious... and then promptly shoot them lol.

Specific incitements to violence is a threat and should be met defensively. Everything else suffers a slippery slope. If I don't protect the free speech rights of the worst, and I start making exceptions for "extreme views" or "hate speech" then it is not long until people start doing the same to me. I follow the golden rule here. 

Furthermore, it is tactically a silly thing to do. It reinforces the bad image that people have about anarchists. That all we want to do is destroy things. 

That pushes people away, allows the real fascists to play the moral high ground if they choose not to fight back. 

I also think that antifa is labeling things and people too broadly fascist. Very few of the people they protest are actual fascists. 

Here are Chomsky's comments on the violent activity.

"You draw the line where the actions are principled and tactically effective. You therefore oppose these actions, on both grounds.

I've received so many inquiries I've been reduced to form responses, below:

Wrong in principle, and tactically self-destructive. When we move to the arena of violence, the most brutal guys win – that’s the worst outcome (and, incidentally, it’s not us). The right response is to use the opportunity for education and exposure, not to give a gift to the hard right while attacking fundamental principles of freedom of speech.

We’ve been through all of this before, for example, with Weathermen. The Vietnamese pleaded with them to stop actions like these, understanding very well that each such act simply increased support for the war. In this case, the motive is far less significant, but the consequences are very likely to be the same, and we can see that they already are. That’s quite apart from the question of principle. There could be a constructive response that would not simply be a welcome gift to the far right and those elements in the state yearning for a pretext for repression: to use the opportunity for education and organizing."

The quote is not opposing the use of violence in theory. The quote is saying that if the leftists and anarchists did resort to violence, we'd almost certainly lose, because we'd be much less brutal and much more moral. So, he's saying that we have to resort to other ways to get the message across.

Read it again. He provided two different arguments: one with regards to principle, and the other on tactics. He said it was "Wrong in principle, and tactically self-destructive. " and then says "while attacking fundamental principles of freedom of speech."

I don't know what this is,never heard of this. I choose neither.

Well, it doesn't help much without knowing what he's exactly referring to as freedom of speech. Is he including hate crime, or not?