I agree with you re: moderation. I agree that it can get out of hand. But (IMO) there are two separate issues at play here. 1. everyone is entitled to free spe

I agree with you re: moderation. I agree that it can get out of hand. But (IMO) there are two separate issues at play here. 1. everyone is entitled to free speech 2. every action has consequences. [truth] 1. People who get "cancelled" complain that they don't have free speech [which is obviously not true], which is the crux of the discussion here. The right/wrong of the opinion doesn't matter in free speech. [opinion] 2. "Consequences" (IMO) is a mix of {a sense of righteous indignation, mob mentality, schadenfreude} - but more importantly, also very much free speech. Vigilantism implies taking the law into their own hands, which "cancelling" is not. When I say "deserve a backlash", (IMO) it is because people who get "cancelled" are often people with a platform/entitlement/privilege. Taking that away is pretty much the only leverage that people have. Even after that, the right to free speech is still not lost. (But do I think "cancelling" is ok? That's context-specific. I agree with some cancelling, some not.)