I understand and partially agree with a lot of what you are saying despite the fact that I don't seem to share much of your positions. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with trying to challenge widely accepted facts, positions or ideas and this is generally not a useless endeavor to a certain extent. But you can't expect of others to agree with you if they see a lot of evidence (by their standards) that (by their standards) sufficiently refutes your descent.

You either want free speech or you don't. As soon as you start putting restrictions on speech regardless of whether you like it or not you choose a side. How long until they limit what you are saying too? This is a slippery slope. Once you allow people to restrict speech you may be in the popular group now, but once you are not it is too late. You've given them the abusive tool to silence you.

That's the thing. If you want free speech, this includes the right of people to see your intellectual positions as crazy or stupid. What you seem to be calling silencing here is just the majority of the people holding a different positions and having the opinion that a certain position is unacceptable to them. Thinking truthers and anti-vaxers are stupid should enjoy the same protection under free though and speech as being a truther or an anti-vaxer. It's as simple as that. Having many people disagree with somebody is substantially different from the person being silenced. And indeed, you will be hard-pressed to find people that disagree with truthers and anti-vaxers who would want to take the right of those people to speak their minds. They just feel that the proper reaction to those ideas is vocal disagreement and that's absolutely fair and the right to react in that is something that everybody is entitled to enjoy and should be protected.