I can't find the quote, but Norman Rockwell said that the inspiration for his Freedom of Speech painting was a town hall he attended where a man not much liked by the community was allowed to speak his piece, even when the people did not like what he had to say.
I'm not arguing we shouldn't be able to shame or shun (the NYT itself would be my preferred target). I think the idea is that we should aspire to resolving our differences through dialog. What we have now is a crowd of people who feel that dialog is no longer necessary, and that to even simply engage in dialog with one's political enemies is bad and might somehow taint you.
But this isn't a new thing, not even a little bit. The House Unamerican Committee, and anti-abolitionists (as in slavery) are both examples of exactly this from history. Arguably, worse and more extreme because of all the, you know, death and murder.
Of course political violence is not a new thing. And given your choice of examples, I feel compelled to remind you that it is certainly not just a right-wing phenomenon.
I am simply stating the ideal, and how the present state of affairs differs from that ideal. I would also add that we are the downslope from a relatively high-water mark period of free speech, and I see no value in regressing in the manner we have.
I'm not arguing we shouldn't be able to shame or shun (the NYT itself would be my preferred target). I think the idea is that we should aspire to resolving our differences through dialog. What we have now is a crowd of people who feel that dialog is no longer necessary, and that to even simply engage in dialog with one's political enemies is bad and might somehow taint you.