He asserts that while people have the right to free speech, they are not exempt from being held accountable by others for the things they say.

“I would never restrict your ability to say what the hell you like that's fine but there are there are limitations the first amendment in United States constitution is one of the most protective shields to free speech anywhere in the world and yet it has a number as you know of exclusions”

Criticizing and refusing to signal boost odious individuals like Nick Fuentes is a legitimate exercise of free speech, not censorship.

“It is not cancellation to draw moral lines between viewpoints. In fact, we used to call that one of the key aspects of conservatism. It is not cancellation to refuse to signal boost Hitler's supporters like Nick Fuentes.”

He believes that the First Amendment provides broad protections for speech that should not be narrowed by claims of offense or calls for social consequences.

“I think that we as a society right now are cancelling livelihoods over someone saying a word and permitting reprehensible behavior in the form of crime in the form of the protests that we have seen in the last recent years.”

Taylor Lorenz expresses concern over the criminalization of speech, even when it is speech she disagrees with.

“the criminalization of speech that we've seen in the UK is very concerning to me.”

James Barr maintains that hate speech is distinct from free speech and requires accountability when it incites violence.

“Like hate speech is different to freedom of speech and there should be accountability.”