Not quite.
I’m willing to give a regular conservative contributor (Greenwald, for example) the room to publish his dissertation on “Lizardmen from space”. Let’s hear his best argument. Then let’s dismantle his argument.
Where did I say that? Greenwald is now writing and advocating on his own. I think that’s fine. If I owned a paper, and he worked there, I’d fire him based on his terrible reporting and dishonesty. But he’s still free to write for himself and post it on the internet, as much as he wants. I’ve never advocated for silencing people from writing or posting whatever they want on the internet.
I’ll be honest, I’m not super-concerned with this. The ACLU is an organization with a very clear mission. If one of their top staffers is saying things publicly that undermine that mission, and they want to disassociate themselves from him, I’m okay with that, as a process.
In this particular case, I’m not okay with it as content, because I think what he said was hunky-dory and the objections to it are bullshit. It’s not the right-wing culture of canceling people to which I object: it’s the specific instance of someone facing consequences for saying something good to which I object.
By way of analogy, I don’t object to tackling people who are doing something dangerous to stop the dangerous thing. That’s a reasonable procedure. But if you say, “He was criticizing the president, that’s dangerous!” I’m gonna think you’re being an asshole, whereas if you say, “He was waving a loaded gun around in a daycare, that’s dangerous!” I’m gonna think your actions were pretty reasonable. The content matters.
We gotta pay attention to what’s actually happening.
That said, there are some people who claim to be very concerned with process. Demontree and Greenwald appear to be in the group making that claim. I appreciate this article, and this OP, for the clarity, that the process isn’t remotely what bothers them.
If you had a media outlet, would you be willing to give him room on it to say his piece?
I think we’re caught up in a name. Substitute Greenwald for another conservative making a case for something less absurd than lizardmen.
I notice that you have dodged the question about whether or not you agree with the books transphobic basis.
You are making a great deal of fuss about this book, which you claim you havent read. 
You seem to ignore our responses that professional level reviews in say, the NYT, etc are only done for bestsellers or books of great importance. If the NYT or any other paper, etc published a review for every single book/author that wanted one, every single issue would be the size of the Sunday Times, and contain nothing but page after page after page of book reviews. Thousands of books are published DAILY. So, the bit about "refusing reviews’ is just plain business and bogus. They simply CANT publish reviews for even a hundredth of books published.
Every trans reviewer has stated the book is transphobic.
Actually, it has been proven that in politics, you ignore crazy accusations, you dont deny them. Denying them gives them more attention and more plausibility.
Convenient? I’d use a different word, myself.
The absurdity is the case.
If there is a conservative talking about tax cuts, that’s policy. I may disagree, but taxes are a real thing. Tax cuts are a real thing.
You want me to substitute Hannity or Carlson? I’ll say pretty much the same thing I say about Greenwald. I would not give them space in my media outlet to say their piece, and the only attention I would give to them is to debunk claims that have gotten traction.
If I thought the idea he was promoting was dangerously false and it was getting enough traction in right wing media, then yes, I’d consider exposing his view in an opinion column and letting people respond to it.
Okay - Douthat. Having Douthat on your show is fine with me; he’s not a regular liar. Same with Erick Erickson. Same with Rod Dreher. Same with Pat Buchanan. On the other hand, NBC should stop paying Hugh Hewitt, because he constantly lies.
Nope, seems like you have covered it pretty well! 
There are a lot of people that buy into the flat earth nonsense. Would you publish a column claiming that the earth is flat and let people respond to it?
This is the motto of Fox, “We report, you decide.” We’ve seen how well that worked out.
I’m happy to entertain more colorful descriptions.
Still better than anchovies.
I guess I’m less hung up on who’s telling the lie but how dangerous the lie is and how much traction it’s getting on the right. Which isn’t to say that I’d extend that courtesy to someone like Roger Stone. My tolerance has limits.
I would not. I have standards, after all. And Fox has no standing as a trusted news source.
ETA: there is no reason to continue to allow the re-telling of thrice told & debunked tales. No matter the support it may continue to have.
No, it really isn’t. Lizard Jews from space is absurd on its face and needs no debunking. Corruption and laptops are both common and plausible, and therefore do need to be debunked if untrue. Has Greenwald said anything equivalent to the former?
He’s said things in the same ballpark – like that there is something to the laptop story.
As are dead children and pizza.