Wow. I can't tell if you're trying to be funny by being meta or you just don't realize what you just said applies to your very argument. Lets break it down.
You want to protect free speech by taking it away because if you don't then someone might use free speech to take away free speech.
First, speech is not an action that can violate your rights. Sticks and stones, etc. And no, just because communication can help organize your political opposition does not mean the speech itself is violating your rights. Actions and legislation do that.
Second, deciding that some things are allowed and some aren't and then enforcing those arbitrary decisions through violence by the state certainly can violate those rights. And and gets easier and more every time.
I suppose you think that limited free speech is a thing that can persist. I strongly disagree. The idea of universe free speech is because any attempt to regulate leads to the loss of all of it fairly quickly if not instantly; they only need to win once. It exists to protect opinions that are disliked by most if not all.
I see your argument is basically that if free speech allows for speech that supports the idea of not allowing free speech then it will fail. And that may be true. That's why constant villigance is required even, especially, when they try to use people who's opinion almost everyone hates to justify it. There is no final solution.