I admit I didn't have time to read the whole post, so this may be a shot in the dark, but how will you argue on the ground of reaoson if you don't have the liberty to argue, if your oponents don't have the stomach for it, but can only tolerate an atmosphere of one-sided partisanship?
The article is about the failure of what boundless liberty leads to ,not liberty to argue
As the late Fulton Sheen says... boundless liberty leads to boundless tyranny. Uncontrolled freedom will always lead a person into slavery. The second alternative can be found in people who have no direction. Their fleeting desires change without there ever being an internal change of the soul, and they are unable to choose between the many attractions and temptations in life. But there is hope because there is a searching. Those who are empty can be filled, but people who are intoxicated with their own egos have no room for God.