I think both you and Ken and the New York Times are getting tripped up by the phrase "free speech." What the New York Times is actually talking about is "ideological pluralism." When elderly Millennials like me were growing up, you could have--at least in educated circles--a broad range of heterodox opinions without anyone getting too upset about what you said.

And that's just not true anymore. I've got in trouble with white progressives in my social circle (which is mostly white progressives) for saying we should carefully scrutinize refugees from Syria and Iraq. Meanwhile my dad--whose grandfather was an Imam and who has worked in Afghanistan--expressed the exact same opinion after we withdrew from Afghanistan and there was the question of Afghan refugees.

Ken is absolutely correct that conservatives used to do it too. But I didn't grow up in the deep south where being in favor of same-sex marriage in the 1990s would get you socially ostracized. I am alarmed, however, that in blue America in 2022, I can't even discuss how my Muslim family members feel about marriage, divorce, etc., except to condemn their views. Saying "rural America in the 1990s was just as bad" doesn't actually score any points with me.

I think the New York Times editorial is confused and inelegant. But kudos to them for actually speaking up. Because I don't think we're all just having some collective delusion that something has changed in "liberal society" and that change isn't a good one.