the G-man wrote:
Card said/wrote politically unpopular controversial things. Ebert did as well.
There's a colossal difference between supporting and funding homophobic causes that play an active role in denying fellow citizens basic rights and humane treatment and expressing a liberal-progressive viewpoint...
Only because you strongly agree with the latter and despise the former.
The whole point of free speech is to respect the right to say controversial things, even extreme things, so those views are tested in the marketplace of ideas.
Twenty years ago, definitely thirty years ago, Card's view on homosexuality was about as mainstream as Ebert's viewpoint on, for example, socialized medicine (which is what it was often called back then in large part because it was so reviled).
Fortunately, at least in the case of Card's views, popular opinion has changed.
It changed in no small part because people didn't censor or demand that what was then considered an "extremist" viewpoint (that gays should marry) be silenced as controversial.
Free speech and the free exchange of ideas isn't about silencing unpopular or even extreme viewpoints because the simple fact of the matter is that anyone can eventually find even a correct opinion labeled extreme.
And cloaking it in the canard that it is okay to silence Card because his views are anti-freedom isn't going to fly either. Once you go down that path, there are plenty of people who could argue that "socialized medicine" takes away basic legal rights including the right to contract. So if that's your argument, one could have just as easily said Ebert should have been silenced for his political views by couching it in anti-freedom terminology.
You and sideous618 deciding what views can and cannot be aired because of what you might term extremism or bigotry are simply the modern day version of the people who felt justified in censoring what they called "heresy" or "sedition."
If your viewpoints are supportable you shouldn't fear debate.