I largely agree with this article (you'll be relieved to hear) but I do have one caveat that I'd like you to consider and it's contained in your subheading. They silenced 'hate speech'. I think it's fairly obvious that they did - and your distinction between Cruz, Graham and Trump is very valid. So why do I keep coming back to that simple two word phrase 'hate speech'.

Simple. In a world of competing ideologies, that word can mean whatever you, or the prevailing power group want it to mean. That's the issue at play from a libertarian perspective. It has nothing to do with how it's being defined now. I think it's probably a good move in the tinder box of US politics - but as the defintion of those two words changes, and morphs, and moves.... 'hate speech' becomes a lot less clear in the future subjunctive.

Those two words and their slippery defintion should worry you. When you say 'the rest of us aren't having this problem' - I'm reminded of August Landmesser. The rest of the people in the famous photo weren't having a problem with challenging the received wisdom of the time either. Didn't make it the right choice though.

These are complicated times and there is no right or wrong solution here - there's just more complexity. However, I'd like people to think a lot more than they are about those two words 'hate speech' and the implied subjectivity contained therein.

(Another excellent article btw. Hope you're safe, heard LA is being hit pretty bad by the Rona.)