I was referring to Schenck v. United States (1919)
, which is where the comments you have been citing were originally made, but I'm glad to learn Holmes had a readjustment in this area.
I am often persuaded by the kind of argument you make which says that the silencing of disagreeable voices is far less desirable than the abuse of the disadvantaged in society. In other words the oppressed can take aspects of their oppression on the chin because even the smallest encroachment of bigots' right to speak is too scary to contemplate, let alone legislate for. Often persuaded of this, but not completely convinced. What I'm particularly interested to examine is whether the view that speech must be totally free even where it contributes to a harmful narrative is easier to hold if you're not
a part of an oppressed minority, and whether that (if true) would be a valid criticism of the argument.
I see no basis for you to argue that any group should receive "special dispensations and protections."
My, I thought uncontroversial, view is that in Western societies White, English-speaking, heterosexual men have special dispensations and protections, tacitly proffered by our patriarchal society, and that it is worth spending time thinking about the ways in which we might redress this balance with regard to the less fortunate.