the other thing that was interesting about the first amendment, was that we all pretty well understood, at least implicitly, that in the shorter term free speech is obviously divisive, and anti-unifying. All of this talk about inclusion and unifying around our shared values is precisely the opposite of the first amendment....
The deeper irony is that in the longer term, free speech is actually unifying because we can (and should) share the value of free speech itself, and, we can live with the hope that out of the free expression of many points of view, including especially erroneous points of view, a sort of consensus will emerge....by allowing the expression of erroneous points of view, you are essentially inviting others either to 1) correct them, or 2) ignore them. Both of these responses have net positive social results.
But by forbidding bad speech, you are essentially empowering it, forcing it underground, giving it the allure of mystery and forbidden fruit, and sowing social unrest/balkanization.
(Of course in the context of this story, the views that have been canceled were not bad, they were good....just lamenting the utter loss of the spirit and letter of the first amendment)
They’ve taught two generations now that speech can be violence. The lessons took.
Effin communists.