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