>Do you expect Taibbi to prove that Marcuse was a pseudo-intellectual, and also that his works were as "influential as [Taibbi] claims" -- all in the excerpt?

I would have appreciated a hint of how he will prove it in the article rather than just name-calling and requiring a subscription to see what his actual point is. I've noticed that the tactic of writing about someone (especially social theorists and other thinkers of more marginal theories) extremely uncharitably is a hallmark of accusations that rely on the reader not being acquainted with the thinker, the thinker's context, or the subject matter more broadly. Look at what the NYT did to Scott Alexander for instance. This excerpt is far worse and far more uncharitable to Marcuse as a person and his intellectual legacy. You don't find attacks like these in good-faith discussion.

>requiring suspension of basic civil liberties and freedom of speech, then for me at least there's sufficient proof that Marcuse has both feet firmly planted in BS territory.

This is not a sign of being a pseudo-intellectual; the fact that he has a political position you disagree with, or reasons from a premise you do not think holds does not make him a pseudo-intellectual. Marcuse's actual essay makes a more convincing case concerning democracy and J.S. Mill's justification for speech on functional grounds, and where it may falter. The partial case against freedom of speech has nothing to do with aggressive driving.

Further, what can we say about someone's legacy and status as an intellectual on the basis of one essay? Surely it matters what he wrote both before and after the essay too. For sure it's unpopular, but there is room for reasoned disagreement. A bad argument does not a pseudo-intellectual make.

A more convincing (but still lackluster) argument would be to say his use of psychoanalytical theory made him a pseudo-intellectual, but unlike some of his peers, he did not use obscurantist language, nor did he bury his ideas beneath several unnecessary layers of abstraction. Marcuse stands up extremely well against others given the label of pseudo-intellectual such as Lacan or even Zizek.

>"enormous impact on philosophy as well as social and political theory" "Guru of the New Left" "new surge of interest"

None of these specifically relate to Marcuse's essay on tolerance, which is the issue under discussion. I don't deny that Marcuse was popular for the main body of his other work, but my point was that there are theories against freedom of speech today which are not only generally more convincing than Marcuse's, but real drivers behind the movement to curtail speech. Few people use Marcuse's argument for censorship any more, though few use the general idea of democracy and its functions to both support and knock down justifications for free speech.

My contention is only this: as far as I can tell, an uncharitable reading of a popular philosopher does not do enough work to designate him as a pseudo-intellectual (and we have some weak evidence to counter, anyway - his work has attracted serious scholarly attention both agreeing and disagreeing with him, and the only other explanation is that all those people are pseudo-intellectuals too, or too stupid to realise it, which is a very strong claim; further, he studied and wrote extensively on aesthetics and philosophy using a wide array of classical and modern theory; was Heidegger too stupid to see he was a pseudo-intellectual too?).

Further, that the importance of his essay on free speech is overstated as the driver behind the movement today and in the past to criticise free speech.