You are misunderstanding.

I'm not calling the paradox (or the constitution) silly, I'm saying they don't apply in this scenario.

From the snippet above:

I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies ; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most imwise

But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force ; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument ; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

In other words, yeah, if that instance starts getting people to be assholes to everyone etc, sure, tolerance does not mean we should let them do so here, that's the point of the paradox. But, as the author states, suppressing them without cause etc would be most foolish. Far better to try and discuss with rational argument first before resorting to "well, we don't want to talk to you because my MAGA uncle is a dick."