The “truth” or a “right” position is often not as cut and dried as we would like to believe.  What do you feel when you read something like this: “[Richard] Spencer has used his right to free speech to call for “peaceful ethnic cleansing” — presumably this entails scaring people into fleeing and/or using the legal system to forcibly purge all people of color and indigenous peoples from the United States”?  Do you—taking the position of a free speech purist or absolutist–believe this person (Spencer) has the right to speak such words in a public forum?  On the other hand, do you resonate more with a position like “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.” ~Mirah Curzer

Akin to a seekingGood posting regarding objectivity and neutrality, Julia Serano, author if Whipping Girl, presents a challenge to our ideas regarding free speech.

While Ms. Serano posted the original article a couple weeks ago, the response was so strong, on the 19th of Feb, she posted a follow-up.