Scott clarifies that he supports free speech for all, but criticizes deliberately seeking controversy when choosing speakers to defend free speech principles. Longer summary

Scott Alexander clarifies his previous post about 'Sacred Principles As Exhaustible Resources', addressing misunderstandings. He emphasizes that he's not against defending controversial speakers like Charles Murray or Jordan Peterson, but criticizes the process of deliberately seeking out controversial figures to test free speech principles. Scott argues that while free speech should protect everyone, the political process of defending it should strategically choose sympathetic test cases to build public support, similar to how the NAACP chose Rosa Parks. He warns against deliberately seeking out the most controversial figures as test cases, as this can harm the cause of free speech in the long run. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that overusing free speech to defend controversial figures may lead to a backlash against the principle itself, potentially depleting it as a societal resource. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the potential negative consequences of invoking free speech to defend controversial speakers or ideas. He argues that while free speech should protect unpopular views, repeatedly using it to defend offensive content may lead to a backlash against the principle itself. The post compares respect for free speech to a commons that can be depleted if overused, especially in the context of growing partisanship. Scott warns that associating free speech primarily with conservative causes could turn it into a partisan issue, alienating liberals. He suggests that to preserve free speech, it should be invoked to defend liberal causes as well, preventing it from becoming solely associated with controversial right-wing figures. Shorter summary