I feel compelled to point out that most of the examples in the article are free speech that happens to (gratuitously in most cases) piss off the minorities. Notable for their absence are transgressions against authorities -- e.g. the sort of vicious recriminations against whistleblowers whose free speech rights are for naught when they hurt the powers that be. Assange nailed it -- free speech is tolerated only so long as it does not interfere with the interests of the power structure. The moment it does, it will be swiftly dealt with -- under one guise or the other.

Somewhat disappointed in this piece from Turley, who's otherwise quite nuanced.