It is important for members of marginalized groups to express political views relevant to how members of their respective groups should be treated. Recently, however, some have argued that there are some contexts in which certain marginalized group members ought not express certain political views relevant to how members of their respective groups should be treated. In this essay, I examine three arguments defending this conclusion (the political solidarity, democratic deliberation, and unjust enrichment arguments) and conclude all three fail. Then, I argue that permitting members of marginalized groups to speak their minds, even in these contexts, favorably affirms their broad political speech rights.