I only read about a 1/3 of it, but I appreciated that the part I did read was not overly political. I will note that the author like many making "freedom of sp

I only read about a 1/3 of it, but I appreciated that the part I did read was not overly political. I will note that the author like many making "freedom of speech" arguments fundamentally mistakes what that means, at least in the context of US law. American "freedom of speech" is specifically not the right to say whatever you please with absolutely no ramification, that people (not the government) listening to your speech have no right to react to it and thus ironically depriving the audience of their freedom of speech. This is of course the "free speech" some want. The ability to voice their views/truths/lies and silence countering views/truths/lies as some sort of censorship of their original speech. To be clear, this is not what "freedom of speech" in the US is or has ever been. I feel like the anonymity of internet speech has confused some into believing that all speech is fair game and that no speech should have a negative consequence. "Left Wing Cancel Culture" is at it's core is a free speech reaction to someone else's free speech. This is fundamentally no different than "Right Wing Dog Piling" or voting in elections for that matter. People can (within some generous limits) say what they want to say without fear that the government is going to arrest them. This is a great American Freedom as many living under totalitarian systems will tell you. People who do say what they want must accept that speech is fundamentally persuasive and that people will react to it. In fact, that was likely the entire motivation for the speech in the first place. No place and certainly not the US has ever held that all speech is good speech and must be embraced without any negative reaction. Tempted to downvote? You will only prove me right.