This post is a response to a question posed on Quora

Upon encountering this question, I thought, “Who is ‘we’?”

My second thought is that this is a typical question by someone who doesn’t understand what “free speech” means.

People often misconstrue “free speech” as a right to say whatever they want wherever they go without suffering the consequences of the content of their speech.

That’s not even remotely close to what “free speech” means.

“Free speech” means only that you will not be hauled off in the middle of the night by your government for saying something that a government authority doesn’t like.

That’s it.

That’s the extent of “free speech” in society.

“Free speech” has never been, nor will it ever be, anything more than a protection against a dictatorial government determining acceptability for the concepts people publicly discuss.

Here’s an example of a violation of the principle of “Free Speech” in society:

This is a politician who has already announced to the world that they are willing to strip fundamental rights from a people based on being personally offended over the presentation of their own words repeated verbatim.

Here is an example of how a self-declared “Free Speech Absolutist” regards “Free Speech.”

This is NOT a “Free Speech” violation because Xitter is a privately owned space, not a government entity. Elon is well within his rights to ban anyone he pleases in the same way you are entitled to kick anyone you don’t like out of your house for no reason you would need to use to justify kicking them out of your house. Your home is yours. You have every right to enforce any rule you like, whether irrational or contradictory.

All Quora answers are the property of all the authors of those answers, and that’s a HUGE draw for people because it means we can delete abusive comments or turn off comments altogether. After all, “freedom of speech,” in practical terms, also means “freedom from speech” — just like “freedom of religion” also means “freedom from religion.”

“Freedom of speech” is NOT an entitlement to be heard. It is a protection from a malicious entity with the power of a government to enforce the homogenization of a public under an autocratic system.

When people reject stupidity barfed up by people they don’t want to hear from, they’re not “cancelling” anything. They’re simply exercising their right to refuse to subject themselves to personally offensive speech.

When it comes down to the notion of being cancelled as a criticism of what happens in society, if one were to create a ven diagram of the people who complain about “cancel society” and the people who endorse banning books, it would be a circle.

Otherwise, the reality of “cancelling a voice” while violating the concept and principle of “free speech” literally means hauling someone off in the dead of night because they offended some government official like Drumpf by repeating their own words to the public in the way that journalism is supposed to in society.

I think the people who complain the most about this issue should spend more time educating themselves on what “Free speech” means. The most impactful lesson one could undergo and never forget is to take a trip to North Korea. Set up a soap box on a street corner. They can then begin criticizing the North Korean government to see exactly what it means to “cancel a voice.”

Otherwise, the tiresome whining about “cancelling voices” on social media is interpreted much like enduring nails on a blackboard.