No, the point was for the author to present their inclusion of Richard Stallman as co-author of their book as some kind of valiant effort in defense of free speech and against the cancel culture she believes unfairly maligns him. The point of the response in that article was not to provide a contrary point of view but to further defend Richard Stallman and portray his critics as enemies of free speech engaged in a witch-hunt.
And no charitable reading of a comment that says "Truth always lies in the middle. I suggest to read this article by Hannah Wolfman-Jones with a response from civil-rights expert Nadine Strossen about the whole ordeal and make up your mind" implies said article will only show the pro-Stallman point of view (literally to sell a book with his name on it) while arguments pro the other side are to be left entirely as an exercise for the reader, rather than presenting a point and counterpoint.
And no charitable reading of a comment that says "Truth always lies in the middle. I suggest to read this article by Hannah Wolfman-Jones with a response from civil-rights expert Nadine Strossen about the whole ordeal and make up your mind" implies said article will only show the pro-Stallman point of view (literally to sell a book with his name on it) while arguments pro the other side are to be left entirely as an exercise for the reader, rather than presenting a point and counterpoint.