Above free speech — fact, reason, equality, and humanism — are probably deeper core liberal values than free speech.

Moreover, free speech is a myth. On one hand, free speech is a right guaranteed by the governments of Britain and the United States, codified into law. But this is not absolute — you can face consequences for speech, such as when it actively puts individuals in danger and of course the civil tort claims of libel and slander.

Free speech does not equate to freedom from ridicule. This is something that liberals are aware of. Right-wingers are aware of it too, but they are trying to turn it into something that it is not by claiming that liberals are trying to actively shut them up as an act of oppression. Most reasonable people recognize that this is bullshit.

That’s the reality of ridicule and that’s just a consequence.

But the question is — and I understand it from your point of view in this piece — is whether or not intolerance of the intolerable could still be deemed “liberal”. However, remember, liberalism is ultimately subjective and the common thread that bounds nearly all liberals is a reliance of facts and reason, a commitment to equality, and a recognition of our common humanity.

And liberals know that there are those that are intent on distorting that, insisting that not all facts are facts, supportive of perverse, detrimental reasoning, and insistence on social hierarchy, and at worse, a chilling rejection of our common humanity. (And yes, I’m aware, the aforementioned can be found in the most emotional of liberals, but in the modern right-wing politics of today, what I just described is its modus operandi.)

However, I do see your point. It can get to an extreme that it is problematic, and that earnest questions from those that want to do more than just “shut up and go along with it” can be dismissed as straight up hate. It’s important to engage, and it is important to reason — especially with those that are opened to being reasoned with.