I routinely see arguments of the type "Argument X is likely to increase prejudice against Trans/BIPOC/Undocumented people, which will lead to more of them being murdered" used against completely mainstream conservative arguments.
Just a few weeks ago a NYT op ed by senator Tom Cotton caused a staff revolt at the paper which got the editorial page editor fired, and a main argument was that publishing it threatened the lives of NYT employees.
> which got the editorial page editor fired, and a main argument was that publishing it threatened the lives of NYT employees
The official editorial note makes no mention of this:
> An editors’ note posted late Friday noted factual inaccuracies and a “needlessly harsh” tone. “The essay fell short of our standards and should not have been published,” the note said.
In the end, criticisms of one for-profit newspaper aren't all that compelling to "free speech". In the same way we don't force a Christian church to allow any atheist to debate evidence against the existence of a god _in_ _a_ _church_, we don't force private companies to publish that which the company doesn't want to publish.
So long as the discussion is happening somewhere in society, I don't know that we must insist that _all_ conversations are happening _everywhere_.
> I routinely see arguments of the type "Argument X is likely to increase prejudice against Trans/BIPOC/Undocumented people, which will lead to more of them being murdered" used against completely mainstream conservative arguments.
So what? Are you saying those arguments aren't true? If so, of course you should make that counter-argument.
Or are you saying that even if they are true, it's more important to protect "mainstream conservative arguments" than to protect those people from prejudice?
Just a few weeks ago a NYT op ed by senator Tom Cotton caused a staff revolt at the paper which got the editorial page editor fired, and a main argument was that publishing it threatened the lives of NYT employees.