> Yes, it sounds like it's close to the (legitimate) bogeyman of government intruding on it's citizens for nefarious control reasons. It is literally the bogey

> Yes, it sounds like it's close to the (legitimate) bogeyman of government intruding on it's citizens for nefarious control reasons. It is literally the bogeyman of the government, not close to. And I'm not sure why you draw the distinction between public and private speech. Public speech is the most important form of speech and the first thing to be attacked by authoritarian governments. Declaring that only the government can decide what is safe for us to see is the most authoritarian thing I can think of. To think that because "bullies" and "authoritarians" would try and convince people in the marketplace of ideas constitutes a threat to democracy so we must expel free speech, and therefore democracy itself, in order to protect democracy is some really twisted thinking. Once you have removed free speech you ARE the authoritarian bully. And in what sense is someone an authoritarian because they are trying to convince you using free speech? Would you consider me an authoritarian because I support free speech?