I read two articles recently in which, whether with good intentions or not, entities were attempting to suppress freedom of speech. The first instance was a college Republicans who believed that, because a speaker Georgetown University was inviting was going to criticize Islam, she, Nonie Darwish, should be disinvited. 

The words of Nonie Darwish, who calls for the annihilation of Islam and claims Islam is a poison to a society, maliciously offend our Muslim brother and sisters, not only on the Hilltop, but around the world.

But this was not *hate speech* targetting specific individuals, but rather a discussion of a religion which Darwish disagrees with. Isn't this rather than the writer of the article didn't want to hear anything that he disagreed with? Since when should freedom of speech be censored in case the hearer is uncomfortable with views that don't match his own? And that includes religion. All religions can be discussed, mocked, spoken for or against; to be against a religion is not to engage in hate speech.  Criticizing christianity, for example is not christo-phobic any more than criticizing Islam is islamophobic. 

From Washington Examiner

Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute President Michelle Easton told Secrets, "This is a woman who spent 30 years living under Sharia law in Cairo and Gaza before finally escaping to America—only for some to attempt to oppress and silence her in the 'land of the free.' Why should ANY ideology be above criticism? Nonie has fatwas on her head in over 50 countries— countries that, if Nonie were to set foot, have an Islamic duty (under Sharia law) to imprison and behead Nonie. Why should her criticism of sharia law and the Islamic values that have endangered her very life be met with protests? Why are we not allowed to question and criticize Islam?"

The second article was about an event at Middlebury College in Vermont. A conservative social scientist, Charles Marry, came to speak at campus and students turned their backs and changed, effectively shutting down his talk. After his car was attacked and one of the co-speakers was injured. From Boston Globe

Violence is simply inexcusable, and flies in the face of the tenets of passive civil disobedience — tactics that the students inside the lecture hall presumably intended to embrace. The college should be commended for turning the speech into a teaching moment — both before and after. Patton is moving forward in an effort to find an educational space where tough conversationsabout the nation’s deep divisions can take place. She had it exactly right when she said that the very nature of freedom of speech is the right to be heard. And it has long been 1 that the cure for loathsome speech is, most often, more speech.

Let me repeat that "The very nature of freedom of speech is the right to be heard." That includes speech that others view as loathsome or not popular, or uncomfortable or not fitting with their own views. If I don't agree with a speaker, I don't have to listen, but the fact that these people are at what should be one of the strongholds of freedom of speech,a college,  without censorship, means that they should be able to speak, as others who don't agree or have different viewpoints also can.  

I've noticed for quite a long time that there are attempts from all sides to censor ideas and speech. Only when people can hear, think about, and judge for themselves if what is spoken fits in with their values, can there be 1 freedom.