The article kinda stumbles. Starts with a popular premise (“free speech = good”) then makes the (data-supported but not cited) connection between dissent and outcome, but really doesn’t make an argument for why we should prefer one outcome over the other (eg, leaves as an assumption what Europe should be, what the unifying culture of Europe and America is and that it ought to be preserved). Sure, we don’t want violence, but violence is inevitable in change, and the writer never discusses either whether a changing Europe is a good thing or why it might not be, simply assuming that it isn’t and that the reader will agree. The writer also never considers the fact that plenty of violence will come from a change of policy, both at home and abroad, and violence always leaks across borders, as Americans well know.
