At the same time he doesn't seem to outline any solution to dealing with the suppressing voices in society. "Ultimately, we have to accept the implications of human creativity." But how will this acceptance be achieved? There is no mechanism in place to tear down a stand in the free marketplace of ideas.
> No one is entitled to intellectual safety
Sure they are. Americans are guaranteed a freedom of religion, which supersedes all logic and intellectual reason.
This author's definition of "free speech" is not easily reconciled with the Bill of Rights...
That isn't what it means. It implies that you have no right to be protected from speech you don't want to hear, as long as it is outside the realm of stalking, harassment and defamation. Therefore you can turn away or plug your ears, but you have no right to expect the government to censor the speech you don't like.
Look at excerpts like this:
> However, as long as human beings retain their individuality, their intellectual curiosity and their scepticism, a common outlook cannot be achieved without systematic coercion — which is what we are witnessing today.
> The perceived power of vested interests and the inertia of democratic decision-making have combined to persuade much of the younger generation that debate is worthless and direct action the only answer.
> So, when the freedom of expression of one group is used to silence others, how is the state to mediate?
TFA is disenfranchised with the economy and government too! He's hiding it behind some awfully flowery language, but all of his arguments could be distilled as a frustration with liberal progress. Surprise surprise; today's democrats, SJWs and liberal boogeymen feel the same, about different topics, and get equally frustrated over their lack of rhetorical impact. The little insecure tangents he goes on really drills home the fact that this isn't about free speech, but rather his pent-up longing for a world where everyone shares the same opinion. If this guy's "dangerous" intellect was so world-changing, it would be self-evident. But it's not. You don't get to blame society when they reject your personal rhetoric, that's the foundation of democracy. The "free speech" framework around his argument is a blatant Trojan Horse.
Damn me for reading this worthless rag all the way through, just to respond in good faith...
It seems the post is equating "freedom of speech" with "right to be heard", which is not part of the deal. My freedom includes the right to ignore you and society decides what speech to promote and demote.