I've never listened to the show in question, and although I've heard the name I've never read or listened to anything by Peterson so I'm not saying you're wrong, but hiding behind 'defending free speech' is pretty common these days with the alt-right. It's the slightly posher 'political correctness gone mad', and usually means that the person in question doesn't want to accept consequences for their insults and mockery etc (often grouped under the inocuous term 'banter').
Isn`t there a point to it though? That people under the "social justice warrior" tag more and more are holding the rules for/defining what is accaptable speech and not? I mean, I understand your point, but my point is that if you`re far enough left it seems to be acceptable to define what`s offensive and not. Why is that right?
And I`m not talking about racial issues. One example is how comedians pretty much avoid performing at Universities anymore, because the politicial correctness has become so extreme that anything is offensive. Is that a good development and why have it become so? Or the proverb thing with gender. When people find it offensive and even hate speech to call someone "he" or "she" instead of for instance "them". That`s crazy to me.
I think maybe that`s why Peterson seems to "defend"(though I`m not sure if that`s what he does) certain things which traditionally is concidered alt right. Not necessarily because he agrees with it, but because he believes the far left is just as bad and can be just as dangerous(but it seems more acceptable in society to be on that side of the spectrum). Maybe(but that`s my interpretation) he also thinks that one extreme makes the chance of another extreme to grow bigger.
That`s also what I get out of his comment: 'In order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive.'
I`ve yet to see anything he says that makes him alt right. All I`ve seen is people(sometimes with their own ideology) trying to label him by interpreting stuff that in my opinion is a misunderstanding of what he says, or sometimes putting words into things he hasn`t said at all. Ironically being accused of bigotry when that might apply to some of the people accusing him of various stuff. Then again, I haven`t seen all his lectures online.