> In my opinion, the people who blast "cancel culture" are often the people who tacitly assume that they are welcome everywhere by default. That's not anyone's

> In my opinion, the people who blast "cancel culture" are often the people who tacitly assume that they are welcome everywhere by default. That's not anyone's right. I would say that a very large part of both modern society and praised historical rebellion against oppression has been about making everyone welcome everywhere by default. Religion, culture, and political views have all been central battlegrounds where people tried multiple times to keep people separated and then when that failed institutionalize rules where people must be welcome everywhere by default. US law is a bit fixated on making free speech about federal law, but individual states have even there illustrated that anti-discrimination do also apply to people outside of government. The US-specific legal trick is here to define specific speech to be directly associated with "protected classes". That is a nice trick, but is in practice indistinguishable from just extending free speech to areas outside of government. Other places like the EU don't go that route and simply define free speech as a human right with the specifics of enforcement given to each country to mostly define for themselves.