Free Speech's Problem of Self-Reference

Most people, people who still broadly support free speech, maintain that some content-specific exceptions are justifiable, even obligatory.  They just disagree exactly on what those exceptions should be.

So can you really apply an exemption from free speech to the exemptions from free speech themselves?

Identity Politics Criticism

I worry that (some of) my criticism of identity politics is (getting) conflated.

A lot of what I criticize of identity politics is not its policy and personal behavior/treatment/practice conclusions.  

It is not my position that we ought not to or can not (not in terms of possibility/ability) lessen the tilt against, and even positively tilt things towards, the marginalized, like in recognizing that “neutral” policy is best thought of/called “facially-neutral” and may indeed still be unfair and need changing, and in recognizing that some explicit advantages for the marginalized in treatment, like affirmative action or exceptions to free speech, may indeed to justified or even obligatory restore justice after countless examples of other phenomenon going to other way, reverse the effects of those that are in the past and those still persisting with us.

Instead, what I am criticizing of identity politics is the idea that we must even do so (engage in this retilting/rebalancing) in the debate itself on the question of whether or not to do so. 

There's also a problem of self-reference here too, among other things.

Tolerance, Intolerance, and Hypocrisy

In the wake of the Phil Robertson news, I'm hearing a lot of the conservative point that liberals preach tolerance and diversity, but they don't tolerate diversity that disagrees with them, particularly forms of Christianity with traditional views on homosexuality. It is argued that this makes these liberals the intolerant ones, and that their combination of these positions makes them hypocrites and implies an inconsistency that delegitimizes their view.

Of course, I disagree. There is some logical difficulty in extending tolerance to beliefs and practices that are themselves intolerant: too much to immediately jump to the conclusion that those liberals who don't apply their commitment to tolerance that far do so out of animus or consequently that they are hypocritical and their position untenably inconsistent. Liberals can quite comfortably oppose anti-gay views without having to jettison their general support for tolerance.  

Economic Problem of Self-Reference

What goods should government provide for, directly like public schools or indirectly like health insurance and mortgage subsidies, and what goods should be left to the free market?

In a concrete instance of a problem of self-reference, the government should provide for the prerequisites of the market.  The market itself cannot provide these things by definition.

What are such prerequisites?  One example, one that is uncontroversially provided for by the public sector, is the protection of negative rights, i.e. to bodily autonomy and property.  But what else is needed for a functioning free market?