The mere presence of disagreement doesn’t make freethought. If someone actively resists engaging with counter-arguments and scientific research because it would undermine their controversial public profile with a certain audience, it doesn’t serve any legitimate interest to further platform their deliberate ignorance.

I don’t know enough about the other two to speak on their relevant conduct, but the case of Richard Dawkins is quite clear-cut. Hence my comment pointing out how your criticism of the FFRF’s decision lacks awareness of the context that it was made in by providing this exact context to you and others.

I hope this helps you to understand my point’s connection to your original comment, if you really weren’t just playing dumb with me.