It is easy to see that if you create an environment in which disagreeing verbally with somebody's opinion and engaging in a discussion of arguments and counter-arguments is disabled, you deviate towards more extreme opinions. That isn't necessarily political: The online discussion spaces that are about crypto currencies systematically chase out anybody doubting that all those currencies will rise "to the moon" for spreading "FUD" (fear, uncertainty, doubt). Personally I would say that fear, uncertainty, and doubt are rather fundamental human emotions, and are absolutely part of any healthy discussion. A good argument would calm fears, resolve uncertainty, and dispel doubt, and not ban the expression of these emotions.

Until last month, any expression of opinion in favor of free speech and against the banning of dissent would have gotten me labeled as "right wing", at least in the US. The "left wing" of American politics was very much in favor of "cancel culture", or the idea that it is okay if somebody loses his livelihood if he expresses an opinion that they disagree with. But the disadvantage of refusing to engage with dissent is that one can easily lose sight of where general public opinion actually stands on certain issues. Thus, the very public statements of certain student organizations blaming Israel for being attacked by Hamas, and the surprise that these statements were labeled as pro-terrorism and antisemitic. Suddenly "words should have consequences" is a right-wing talking point, progressive students are seeing their livelihood threatened by losing job offers, and the left is starting to speak out against "cancel culture".

I find it regrettable that a more nuanced discussion of the Middle East conflict isn't possible. I think that unconditional support of either side isn't justified. Most certainly, nobody can justify killing a 6-year old boy in Illinois for "being Palestinian", nor the rise of attacks on Jews all over the world. In a world where it becomes increasingly impossible to resolve conflicts verbally, resolving those conflicts by violence becomes inevitable. Free speech is not a "nice to have" feature of society, but a necessary safety valve to express disagreement before it turns into violence.