That's a bit off topic, but I'll bite. First, a lot of the comments show some confusion. "Free". We are not free to do evil, only good, though we can be permi

That's a bit off topic, but I'll bite. First, a lot of the comments show some confusion. "Free". We are not free to do evil, only good, though we can be permissive of certain evil acts committed by others because its punishment would lead to still greater ills. Speech can also be good or evil. To make slanderous claims is evil because it not only perverts the faculty of speech, but maligns someone innocent of the accusation which brings others into errors about that person and also harms that person. calls for violence are evil. Those who claim free speech means saying whatever you want whenever you want aren't very rigorous and often fall back on some kind of incoherent and insidious skepticism (a la "says who") or relativism. Or they don't really mean it and are reacting to abuses of censorship. And that's the other side of the coin. Theory is one thing, but out of a concern about the abuse of censorship by tyrants and those in power, we may wish to tolerate evil speech to some degree. So the question now becomes: what are the acceptable limits of the permissiveness in the current conditions? There is a correct answer, but in practice, that is going to be determined by various political forces acting for various reasons. While tradition used to have a greater say in determining prohibitions on speech and "expression" for the sake of the common good (seen in blasphemy and pornography laws), today the revolutionary left has taken control and has been busily imposing speech codes that prevent "undesirable" discussion in opposition to the revolutionary ideology, often in the name of "the people". Meaning, we're no longer talking about banning swastikas and other pernicious symbols. We're talking about the silencing of even rationally defended views that don't agree with the revolutionary ideology while giving virtual free reign to toxic leftist polemic because it falls in lockstep with the ideology. All of this is to say that this move by Twitch is not really that interesting. There are far more dangerous developments in play. And to your point, I do expect even more pressure to be put on religious faiths to conform the revolutionary ideology. Take the Roman Catholic Church, for example. Catholicism was always hated and feared in the United States. And indeed, it had been neutered in various ways to conform to liberal ideological expectations over the course of the 20th century. However, given the proliferation of various novel and exotic sexual identity protected groups, I fully expect the RCC to experience a new period of persecution in the US under the guise of protecting these groups from the supposed persecution by the Church. Either that, or the bishops will continue down the path of going full Protestant and step in line with the demands of the state (and subsequently crumble into even greater irrelevance and apostasy). Probably both and in either case this is a success for revolutionary social engineers. A similar fate awaits others.