I can see your point but I don't think it's something that can be boiled down to a quick summary and then dismissed. The idea isn't about an inherent right, it'

I can see your point but I don't think it's something that can be boiled down to a quick summary and then dismissed. The idea isn't about an inherent right, it's more about a courtesy of respect towards others no matter how much we disagree with them. The first article isn't demanding it, it's pointing out the lack of it and leaving it as an exercise to the reader to decide the right path forward. In my opinion this is something the government should never enforce, but I am happy to allow other people to voice whatever it is they have to say even if I disagree. I think a good example of this idea in practice is /r/Libertarian on Reddit: it's a community that's very protective of the right to free speech and I would say they largely agree with the first article. The courtesy is extended to others (socialists, fascists, communists, etc.) and their comments appear on most posts. There is no strong desire to censor or even ignore these posts, instead they are often met with well thought-out rebuttals or the agreement to disagree. Though the two people may judge each other based on views, it rarely if ever devolves to name-calling, downvote brigades, or censorship.