That is the eternal quandary for pacifists and non-interventionists. While there are strong arguments to be made against foreign intervention, how bad do the atrocities have to get before you have a moral duty to defend the innocent? As I said, I've become more opposed to intervention over the years, particularly as a result of the endless bungling in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that leaves me conflicted over how best to respond to evil dictatorships and human rights abuses.

One thing I do know, however, is that acting against speech alone would be a dangerous precedent to set. Not only is speech far harder to judge than violent action, but there isn't even certainty that it will lead to the violence you fear. Past cases where mere rhetoric might have merited intervention, such as Rwanda or Germany, are really only justifiable in hindsight.