I'd be glad to, however I'm short on time now:
here is the gist of it
I'm sorry, but that article is totally insane.
1) It assumes that people want to be offensive, and that they are being held back by oppressive laws, when in fact there are very good reasons for political correctness.
-On university campuses, in order to promote an environment where students don't have to worry about being hassled by other students about their race, sex, or sexual orientation, and can instead focus on learning.
-In general life, calling people things like "N*gger" is rude, like saying that someone's an @$$hole , and so people avoid it because they have no desire to make other people uncomfortable.
2) It (the article) states many "facts", but it offers no source for any of them. It also shows itself to be biased strongly towards conservatism, from the very first sentence. Indeed it distinguises conservatism from other ideaologies when it states that all ideaologies are totalitarian, without offering proof for either statement (that all ideaologies are totalitarian, and that Conservatism is not).
3) It says that people are "serving jail time for political thought", and cites hate crime laws as an example. This is not true, people are serving jail time because they comitted crimes motivated by their hate. Sometimes they get extra time for it, but they are not in prison becausee of a harmless thought that they had, they are in prison for a criminal action. (source: wikipedia.com/wiki/hate crimes)
4) It uses hypothetical examples to support its point, instead of real-world examples. For example, in the fifth paragraph, the author details the thoguht process leading from political correctness to historical revisionism. He does not support this with examples, but just assumes that the ridiculous train of thought takes place regularly.
-The closest it comes to real examples is in paragraph nine, where he actually mentions Shakespeare's works as well as the Bible, but fails to give any specific exampls, and slides back into hypotheticals.
5)It spends most of its time talking about German Marxists (and for some reason the author feels the need to tell us that they were all Jews) and repeatedly says that they were linked to political correctness. Yet, in the second-to-last paragraph, where he seems to be bringing it all together, he does not do this. Instead he launches into a long monologue about how hippies are bad. Again, offering no proof.
This is an example of what my debate teacher wold call bad speaking. Hypothetical examples, incomplete logical processes, and no sources.