rap music and any music with "vulgar" lyrics (PARENTAL WARNING labels on CDs)
harry potter (satanic magic messages offending the christian right)
construction of neighborhood mosques (we can't have a foreign religion in our white christian suburb, can we???)
french fries (remember freedom fries???)
lgbtq rights
womens' reproductive rights
frank discussion of endemic police brutality
just about anything new, foreign, liberal, confusing or ethnically diverse else that would upset the sensibilities of a deep red state bible belt voter.
I won't spend the time to go through and contradict every single one of your points, but let's not forget that Tipper Gore (Al Gore's wife at the time) was the main push behind the parental advisory labels, freedom fries is a joke to 100% of the people I've talked to about it, and just because not everyone agrees at what point (or whether) an abortion becomes synonymous with a murder does not mean that everyone on the right wants to rule over women (unlike some cultures that do exist to this day in other countries).
It's a delicate balance and not one that is so black and white.
Deplatforming someone over this isn't "bravely standing up to intolerance". Deplatforming the author is just simple anti-intellectual intolerance of the diversity of ideas that (used to) make the academy so great.
[1] https://arcdigital.media/self-censorship-in-the-academy-5241...
It's wrong when people on the right do it, as well as now when those on the left do it.
Some people just don't like censorship.
That was Tipper Gore and her cronies (from both parties). The same Tipper Gore that married Al Gore the left-wing/Democrat. I don't think this example supports your argument.
Al Gore also participated in that shit-show of attempted censorship.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipper_Gore [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_Music_Resource_Center
Except that one of these can only be criticized anonymously.
Judging by the list you wrote, you seem to be very much opposed to moral panics and moralistic censorship. I find it surprising that you're not concurring with the people you're responding to on this. I would've taken you for a liberal person.
I was convinced that it's a good thing that the right is most impacted by the censorship, as the right was more supportive of capitalism and it caused them to notice some of its problems, while the left is already against it. Needless to say, it didn't turned out exactly how I expected and apparently we're bound to repeat this vicious cycle forever, only normalizing the worst possible tactics along the way.
Thats not my read of the situation. I agree that if his goal was to convince the authors, it would make sense for him to be more accomodating. And it wouldn't make sense to call them out in public.
But thats not his goal here. To my eyes, this piece takes a shot at the culture which produced their editorial decision. He's calling cancel culture (and its adherents) craven and scared, using this situation as an example.