If it's not that your view has been silenced - by law, by repression or indeed by anything - what are you going to say about the fact that it has to compete alongside other views and so may not always prevail? One of the things you can say is that, despite the wide coverage it appears to get, there's a more subtle and insidious process by which it becomes 'invisible'.
Step on to the platform Karma Nabulsi. She's availing herself of Herbert Marcuse's concept of 'repressive tolerance' to suggest that the democratic culture we inhabit contains a 'a mechanism to exclude truth and knowledge', is characterized by 'a cacophony of voices arguing on conflicting interests in a "tolerant" and "neutral" arena, unable to organise in an effective collectivity', with this giving rise to 'a pervasive amnesia... across the liberal media' over - you've probably already guessed - the politics of the Middle East, and in particular the way in which Iraq is related to the predicament of the Palestinians.
Herbert Marcuse is a writer from whose works I have profited. His thought deserves to be taken seriously. But his thesis of repressive tolerance wasn't his strongest. It failed to show how the liberal freedom publicly to express a critical view can actually be repressive relative to... well, the repression of it, and had the bad consequence, just by the way, of encouraging people to disvalue something which even the most democratic societies could generally do with more of, namely tolerance (within the usual Millian constraint).
In Nabulsi's hands, the argument not only skates close to the absurdity of implying that views like her own on Iraq and Palestine/Israel are lost to public view; it also reveals its anti-democratic implication. She sees only a cacophony of voices where others might recognize public debate, because at bottom, for her, there's only one side of the story she cares about that is worth listening to.