He notes later in the article, that at some point in more distant past the "free speech" and "safe speech" claims were used in reverse by the Blue and Red "factions":
"However, I think it's significant that when we had the same fight on Livejournal ten years earlier, it was the opposite way: fictional "child pornography" in the form of explicit Harry Potter fan art and therefore "free speech" was a Blue/Left/aGG/SJW thing, with the Red/Right/Gamergate/MRA side taking what we'd now call the "safe speech" position. For that reason I'm inclined to think that the link between Culture War sides and free/safe speech is more a matter of historical accident than anything naturally flowing from whatever defines these sides."
Interestingly, I remember reading somewhere some time ago (I think on some kind of "rationality" website, but not 100% sure, and probably via HN; but maybe actually in a paper book), that particular concrete views associated with some distinct political "sides"/"factions" (like "rightist vs. leftist") are often surprisingly accidental and "just" of random historical origin. Though usually explained as "rationally/logically founded on basic principles [of the faction]", in reality it seems to often be rather kind of "we say so because we say so". Unfortunately I cannot recall particular concrete examples from the article, I only remember the general idea, as it was quite shocking and surprising to me, as you can see it left a lasting impression. However, in case of the OP story, the "safe speech" vs. "free speech" swap seems a nice example of such mechanism.
"However, I think it's significant that when we had the same fight on Livejournal ten years earlier, it was the opposite way: fictional "child pornography" in the form of explicit Harry Potter fan art and therefore "free speech" was a Blue/Left/aGG/SJW thing, with the Red/Right/Gamergate/MRA side taking what we'd now call the "safe speech" position. For that reason I'm inclined to think that the link between Culture War sides and free/safe speech is more a matter of historical accident than anything naturally flowing from whatever defines these sides."
Interestingly, I remember reading somewhere some time ago (I think on some kind of "rationality" website, but not 100% sure, and probably via HN; but maybe actually in a paper book), that particular concrete views associated with some distinct political "sides"/"factions" (like "rightist vs. leftist") are often surprisingly accidental and "just" of random historical origin. Though usually explained as "rationally/logically founded on basic principles [of the faction]", in reality it seems to often be rather kind of "we say so because we say so". Unfortunately I cannot recall particular concrete examples from the article, I only remember the general idea, as it was quite shocking and surprising to me, as you can see it left a lasting impression. However, in case of the OP story, the "safe speech" vs. "free speech" swap seems a nice example of such mechanism.