Excerpts from the journalist's piece I think are worth quoting: > "The specter of “cancel culture” is a concept most often invoked to protect those in power, o

Excerpts from the journalist's piece I think are worth quoting: > "The specter of “cancel culture” is a concept most often invoked to protect those in power, often straight white men such as myself, from facing consequences for their actions, but I want no part in it. I’m not going to start a YouTube channel railing against the perceived dangers of PC culture. I believe I lost my job unfairly. At the same time, I firmly believe that people, especially those in power, should be held accountable for what they say and do." > "There was no union at the Register. Had I been a union member, I believe I would have been able to more effectively advocate for myself." These two paragraphs are almost a contradiction (saying "I’m not going to start a YouTube channel" but writing a blogpost railing against ununionised workers not being able to advocate for themselves), but it isn't quite a contradiction, and that nuance is exactly where I think the "line" is in this debate. People's lives are ruined not because there's no authoritarian protection of "free" hate-speech, but rather because there's no individual-level protection of actual livelihoods.