In a Rhetoric class, we learned to call this situation an "aporia": it's been talked about from every possible direction and perspective, but since it is important to both sides, the "agree to disagree" solution won't work. In fact, it's so important that the usual democratic/majoritarian acceptance of defeat on this point for the sake of the polity seems a little shaky. The outcome of aporia will typically be what's been called instituional violence (one side imposes its will on the other) or overt violence. I think some of what "chicken" sees as hostility to free speech just represents an awareness on the part of government of how potentially explosive the situation is. It's not inconcievable that these people could see their moral mission overriding the value of citizenship. Yeah, it does have some of the dynamics of the slavery debate.