A crook argument

Alastair Crooke, apostle of moderation, is worried about the constraints there are on freedom of opinion. He says:

We are not free to say exactly what we like. The norms set by institutions, convention and our need to keep within the boundaries of accepted behaviour and thought limit what may be touched upon.

From the second sentence here you may already have guessed that the limits Crooke is referring to are not the threat of torture, or prison, or persecution, not even the danger of being treated like a pariah. The limits are only that you may have to contend with contrary opinions strongly held. As this man did:

The Archbishop of Canterbury experienced the backlash from stepping outside these conventions when he spoke about aspects of Islamic law that might be imported into British life.

Or else you may face the charge of being 'naive' (oh no), or even (Pelion on Ossa!) the risk of being told by someone that you're not qualified to speak in some matter because you lack the necessary expertise. In fact, if you care to read Crooke's piece, you'll see that he's debating issues that are widely aired today - concerning the war on terror, attitudes to Islam and to Islamism, etc. - and that he's doing so freely in a well-known public forum, within a 'dispute about ideas' of the very kind he commends to us. All under the deluded rubric, however, that 'we' are 'not free to say exactly what we like'.

It's true, there are some limits; but Crooke doesn't even come close to a serious discussion of what these are.