Speech must first and foremost be free, but it cannot be made equal. Attempts to bring about “equality of speech” causes multiple problems.

Importantly, there is no benevolent dictator. The benefit of liberal debate is that it recognises that everybody is prejudice and pits those differing prejudices against one another. This advantage is not present where an authority determines which speech is allowed or where there is too much of one kind of opinion.

Any attempts to block inquiry or debate will inevitably backfire. Those censored will only grow angrier - they will most certainly not stop talking. When relegated to the fringes, the discourse will go unchecked and likely become genuinely insidious.

Despite poor attempts to persuade otherwise, ethnicities do not have perspectives - individuals do. The opinions differ as much within groups as outside. Individual activists push the pretence that there is something like a “gay” perspective in the hopes it legitimises their viewpoint.

To enjoy the fruits of progress, we require a process of trial and error without mortal risk. In nature, animals engage in trial and error but with fatal consequences when the new landscape they explore is inhospitable. Humans have the unique capacity to conjecture and criticise indefinitely, refining and expanding the pool of knowledge. The introduction of punishment against the proponents of propositions destroys this necessary error-correcting mechanism. When we start to attack the people behind the ideas, the system falls apart.

In liberal science, there exist two moral obligations:
Allow error and criticism
Check every idea - knowledge is that which withstands the criticism