>With regard to MacKinnon, Langton, and Hornsby, what would you suggest I read (within reasonable time; say, of same order time as reading On Liberty) to inform myself on their arguments against free speech?

You're in luck, because we're mostly talking about papers here, rather than books. What books there are usually are just compendia of papers, in the modern academic philosophy way of making books these days. Here's a comment I wrote a while ago with what I think are important papers in the area: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23136757

It's worth noting that there are responses and counter-responses etc. I'm at the point where the discussions don't matter so much; I'm not convinced that the state is legitimate anyway, and certainly not the modern bourgeois state... with its dangerous driving.

>Or can you explain what business "planned obsolescence" has in the same sentence as indoctrination and special forces?

Marcuse's aim in a sentence like that is to make the reader think about connections, to link these things as part of the social and economic machinery. It's not that they're related in themselves, they are related as products of capitalism as supported by the political state and the economic market. For example, the list makes me think of the extreme economy of time.

>Marcuse had been mired in dialectical comparisons for so long that his sense of proportion was fucked beyond recognition

I don't think it's fair to say that Marcuse had lost any sense of scale between wrongs; rather, I think that to list things big and small actually gives the reader a sense of scale of the system. With some books, I think, it's appropriate to immerse the reader and make them relate their own experience when reading. Too many do not make good enough use of rhetoric, and sometimes the rhetoric is used as a battering ram (as I think Taibbi's essay has).

I think there are two possible schools of thought here; that perhaps Marcuse's argument is entirely compromised by the presentation of concepts (and perhaps even his point is compromised), or the arguments or general point stand even when the rhetoric and 'feel' conveyed is peeled back. Now of course it may be the case that even if his point is not compromised, it is logically flawed. That's fine too, but it needs more than what I see as a namecally hit piece.

>its reporters are (very stridently, openly, and indeed, melodramatically) agitating internally and externally in a bid to silence certain nonconforming voices

I have sympathy for this view of what they're doing, but I think it would also pay to examine why Taibbi is writing the article he is writing too. Is it to shut down people who would bring out Marcuse in an argument? Is it to convince philosophers that Marcuse isn't all he's made out to be? I really can't tell, but the way it's written is making me think there's more to it than a simple essay on Marcuse. It doesn't serve as an argument against his point or really any of his positions.

Look at the way philosophers and economists have treated Marx. While there are plenty of angry people on the internet writing against him, generally, the response is measured. Scott's article on Marx is at least somewhat charitable. Even the great Paul Samuelson took his arguments to task. But the focus generally wasn't on Marx's use of rhetoric. I don't think it's a far stretch to say Taibbi has effectively written an article to cancel Marcuse long after he's dead and his influence waned, where the only people making use of his work is a small subreddit and a small community of philosophers who specialise in the Frankfurt School.