Then you have likely found yourself in a situation where you needed to out of necessity or principal.

So I ask you again, was Martin Luther King scum for voicing his opinions and endangering his family to violence? Because he did this, he did this knowingly out of necessity. Many civil rights activists and their families died expressing themselves and fighting for their freedoms. They died for their political opinions and arguments. Their houses were caught on fire, families were hung. Many were beaten and killed for simple sit ins. They were told to be submissive, to avoid this, but we wouldn't of progressed to where we are today... It would of only made matters worse. Were they also responsible for the violence that ensued? The only person at fault for physical violence is the individual who escalates the situation to physical violence. Today we recognize these activists were brave for standing by their beliefs in threat of violence, and realize the only responsible people in this situation are the ones who resorted to violence. What is scummy is targeting the victims and demanding they yield to violence or else the ensuing fight is their fault.

This is akin to me saying a victim is at fault for being assaulted because they walked down through a crime-ridden neighborhood, or that a victim is at fault for being robbed because they didn't have better home security. That's not how this works, that isn't ethical. These people are not doing anything morally wrong, only the aggressor is.

The very foundation of the freedom of speech is that anyone can voice their opinion, make their argument, whether you like it or not. No one has the right to silence you wit a threat of violence, and you are not required to yield to this. To demand that people subvert to violent demands is unethical in my opinion. If the person then follows through with their violent threats, that is on them and their inability to control themselves. When a cop is making their report do you really think that the fact you were defending some political opinion the aggressor disagreed with will cause them to hold you responsible? No.

I can see what you're arguing, but when everything is said and done this stance is a case to case basis. Certainly your SO to get pummeled over an argument concerning song lyrics is bad, and it would of been better for the other person to walk away because the argument is not of consequence. The aggressor is still at far more fault for being an unhinged lunatic, but the other person could of walked away. Not all arguments are like this, and that is a wide brush stroke.

You can call my argument anecdotal, but the purpose was to demonstrate your view on the matter was not a "one size fits all," stance.