This seems like a terrible article to me. The author makes sweeping generalizations about his audience, he doesn't clearly explain why the comic is bad (he makes accusations but they're never really deduced), and it's so hyperbolic it's just ridiculous but it's clearly not satire. And as far as I can tell he doesn't even understand the comic he's criticizing so harshly.
It feels like something an enthusiastic redditor would cobble together in 30 minutes to win an argument against someone.
> Freedom of speech isn't just a legal assurance that congress shall make no law abridging it. It is also a set of cultural norms rooted deeply in a long lineage of hard won ideas. It is Friedrich Nietzsche's dictum that only insecure societies are threatened by quirky characters with weird ideas. It is Evelyn Hall's principle "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". It is my friend Daniel's observation that tolerance is the experience of suffering through unpleasant ideas.
Yup, it's not a bad point of view, but it totally misses the point of the contested xkcd comic, which doesn't fight with the freedom of speech and doesn't reduce it to the dead law.
To me, the author is trying to express a feeling that I've also experienced before. It happens when someone in a discussion appeals to the spirit of freedom of speech, and the other guy shuts it down using the argument in the Xkcd comic.
I hate seeing that happen because it shows how little people value their ability to freely express their minds on a public forum. Or if they do value this, it shows how they're willing to disconnect that notion from the one that gave rise to encoding the freedom of speech into our constitution.
It feels like something an enthusiastic redditor would cobble together in 30 minutes to win an argument against someone.