Excellent question, and you are anticipating one of the main themes of my argument in Part 2. What I can say for now is that I think that any attempt to restrict speech needs to be scrutinized and must be able to justify itself. There are some legitimate reasons to restrict power, including speech, but they are measured by whether such restrictions would increase the circulation of power or not. The old example of restricting the right to shout “fire” in a crowded theater is a legitimate restriction of speech. Specifically on those activities that claim to be “anti-racist,” I ask that question: are you attempting to increase power such as freedoms and rights, or are you just attacking a perceived enemy? That’s why I think understanding political and social actions in terms of the spectrum of power concentration is helpful, not to throw around labels of :left” and “right” but to get to the pragmatic issues of intentions and consequences. My Part 2 article will cover these and other issues. Thank you for your question and comments.