Once upon a time we thought it was a good thing for bigots to think twice before sounding off. Now the Government, aided by the sections of the press, attacks those who criticise bigotry.
Of course, the targets of bigotry are always those without power. And so the Government's stance, aided by sections of the press, entrenchs the ability of those with power to punch down at those without.
And there is no loss of free speech. Free speech is the right to speak; not to speak without consequence. The framing of it as a right to speak without consequence has as its intent the demonising of those who push back against the bigots - those without power (and their allies).
All of this is perfectly conventional analysis. That it is absent from how most of our media report on what it frames as "cancel culture" reveals for whom that media speaks, whose power they seek to entrench, and who they seek to keep in their place.
Here's what Article 10 says. It's about interference by *public authorities.* It doesn't inhibit your right to call out someone for their bigotry. Amazing how absent this point is from motivated Government framing and the media's delivery of it. 
Those pushing this preposterous narrative - that you have to suck it up if some empowered, usually white, person challenges whether your humanity is equivalent to theirs - are not stupid. They know this framing is nonsense. So why do they push it? What's really going on?
The truth, more often than not, is that what they are really fighting for is a right to espouse their views without dissent. They are not arguing for free speech, they are arguing that you should accept their hegemony. They are arguing against your right to challenge it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
