| > illegal, incites violence Who decides what these terms mean? At present its a small group of left-leaning corporate executives. At the moment it just seems like people doing their own interpretation of what someone's inner motives are, because I really can't see a clear cut example of incitement of violence from any of this. This to me is a perfect example of the term "thought police" - we are guessing what your thinking. E.g. Steve Bannon putting "heads on pikes" is clearly a common figure of speech and simply an emotive expression of anger. I'm sure you can find many politicians expressing similar things..."let's punch nazis" etc. Sounds like it can't cause harm...but what if you are called a Nazi and you are not? Every single atrocity in history comes from a group of people being portrayed as something they are not and then dehumanized because of it. "Trump supporters" are incredibly dehumanized at present. They are nazis, racists, etc. It's okay to mistreat them because they are really bad people. 70mm people voted for Trump, and would probably disagree with the interpretations of the free speech violations. Do we actually believe a democratic process would result in a decision to permanently censor? No way. All you have to do is imagine the reverse situation by swapping the two sides and imagining how you would feel. Would you ever be okay having your speech taken away from you from a side that you disagree with? You might say "but I would never incite hatred", but what if they say you do? |