It's refreshing to see an article address the distinction between what might be called "tolerance of expression" and "freedom of expression". The latter, at least in the US, is protected by the First Amendment, but it's impossible to express frustration on this issue without being (often rather smugly) informed that such protection doesn't exempt you from the social consequences of your speech. [1] This is true, of course, but those social consequences still threaten "free speech," broadly defined. Historically, one of the core features of liberalism, especially Anglo-American liberal democracy, has been a tolerance of divergent opinions. And yet, the inheritors of this tradition have largely abandoned such tolerance. [2] Views that deviate even slightly from the reigning orthodoxy are frequently smeared as "hate speech"—an Orwellian term if ever there was one. The result is a world in which even the most banal observations risk condemnation for bigotry.

[1]: See, e.g., http://xkcd.com/1357/.

[2]: I suspect the underlying reason is that "free speech" was an effective weapon against the ancien régime, but with the enemy defeated it is no longer politically advantageous.