Free Speech

Usually the censors mask their motives, and give their supporters cover to change the debate by arguing these points instead, contend that the heretic in question is abusing his academic authority and that they're simply doing their job to stop that.

Most commonly by singling out something the heretic either has or may have gotten wrong, presenting decontextualized opinions and quotes which seem or are outrageous, emphasizing parts of their argument which are or possibly are incomplete, or in some cases simply revealing something embarrassing about the heretic. Usually they try to make it somewhat relevant to the debate, at least as they see the debate.

One does have to ask though, isnt it an extraordinary coincidence this academic abuse just so happens to be in a subject the censors find incendiary?

And in the age of Testosterone Rex I dont even need to ask if more acceptable and respectable academic abuse is tolerated in the name of free inquiry