[annalex]

A legislation that follows natural rights would ban speech that violates rights.

In addition to speech that disrupts rightful speech, offensive to the community standard speech is also not rightful as my article argues; that, too, can be banned.

You can't call such bans "disruption of speech" unless you are interested is punsterism. Normally, the word "disruption" is reserved for prevention of activity that is positive in some sense. We don't say "police disrupted a robbery".

[PatrickHenry]

Just discovered a hot Ayn Rand thread, complete with audios of some objectivism lectures:

Ayn Rand books & objectivism lectures.

[Nebullis]

Normally, the word "disruption" is reserved for prevention of activity that is positive in some sense.

That's the way in which you use it, yes. Normally, the word "disruption" means a break from the normal flow or order of things. And that can be positive or negative. "Disruptive innovation", for instance, is positive.

However, I can see why you bristle at cornelis' suggestion.