The mayor of Ridgeland, Mississippi just recently cut off funding to the local library, demanding that all "homosexual materials" be removed. This occurred after the library put out a display that included several LGBT-oriented books. The library refused to allow such censorship and raised over $100,000 to remain in operation through the fall.
Once lawyers got involved, the city changed its story and said they were merely looking to renegotiate their contract with the library, thus allowing them to include language in the contract enabling the city to object to books and displays of "adult material", referring to books depicting LGBT individuals.
The entire series of events was triggered by the chairman of the board of a conservative think tank based in Mississippi called the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, who lodged the complaint about the books with the Ridgeland mayor. What I find remarkable is that if they had demanded that the library remove all books depicting African-Americans, the law would be clear on the legality of such a request. But somehow the same standard doesn't apply to LGBT individuals.
Banning books seems so old fashioned. It's ridiculous to ban classics for being racist when it gives us a view of how bad the world had been. And equally ridiculous is banning books because you don't agree with something the author says or believes.
Here is a true story. I read a book that was one of the most beautifully written books I ever read. Not just the subject, which was creativity, but the language was exquisite. I didn't recognize the author by her name which was a common one. A friend then told me who she was, and it turned out to be someone I not only knew but hated. She was one of the most obnoxious, loud mouth, nasty people I'd ever met. I was shocked because knowing this was the author of this gorgeous book did not make me like her or dislike the book. I don't know what that has to do with book banning or author banning, but if you enjoy a book it does not mean you have to enjoy the author. I also heard Mother Teresa was a nasty old woman who belittled and criticized people constantly. Does that make her good works with orphans any less?
People on these threads need to stop bashing Charlie and everyone for criticizing the left when it is deserved. I'm a (moderate) progressive, and though I sometimes disagree with Charlie's "tough love for our Progressive friends" moments, I'm absolutely grateful for them.
This is one of the few online political sites that hasn't been arguably compromised by audience capture, and we need to ensure it stays that way. I don't want the Bulwark to become the leftist version of "Common Sense with Bari Weiss", where it ends up being such comfort food for those of us on the left that we have to worry they're afraid to alienate us by pointing out some of the obvious problems with progressive illiberalism and overreach.
If you want unmitigated criticism of the right, along with the convenient swatting away of any criticism of the left as an overwrought Republican talking point (all served up with a generous helping of toxic progressive cliches about "whiteness", "colonialism", and "violent speech"), there are plenty of places for that. This isn't one of them.
Some people don't realize how much Charlie and Mona have had to change their tunes. I've read some of their columns from way back in the day. Still a bit too much Reagan worship for my taste, but they've had to re-calibrate quite a bit. Also, the commenters on Bulwark+ are definitely some of the more reasonable commenters out there (I read a lot of newsletters).
Why are we celebrating the substitution of adjudication for legislation? Is this a conservative ideal? Unqualified lame duck Trump lifetime appointment overrides CDC. Yay?
Why is it so hard for adults to wear a surgical mask on an airplane to protect an infant or toddler too young to wear one? It is too much to ask of people to protect youngest children on an airplane just in case?
I am trying to understand why a people and party who care so much about families and children and commerce are so obsessed with comfort that they would risk a child’s well being.
Still trying to understand the conservative viewpoint. Failing.
Take your choice. Mix and match. 1. They discovered they could win favor by saying that mask or vaccine requirements are oppressive. 2. Republicans don't care much about people who have been born. See infant mortality rates and murder rates in red states. 3. There are no conservatives in the Republican Party. 4. Divide and conquer works extremely well for the GOP. 5. Sometimes the last words of people dying of covid are to say that covid doesn't exist,. That's the power of disinformation. 6. There's a lot of money in encouraging people to die unnecessarily (see Fox News). 7. The pope had the right idea: Getting vaccinated is an act of love. Republicans hate the pope because he is actually a Christian. The Republican version of Christianity is based on dominating society, not caring about people.
Speech IS often a form of violence or aggression. Them are fightin' words. We often use speech as a form of violence and oppression/suppression because we are not free to use actual violence.
Words are used with the intention to harm. While you may not bleed on the outside and no bones were broken, you were harmed--and that harm can be far more reaching and difficult to overcome than bruises or cuts or broken bones. I see the harm that words do every day and this has become ever more prevalent in the age of social media.
And that harm can become pervasive if others take up the idea and act upon the words in various ways... especially if they get government support.
Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me is a foolish children's rhyme, without actual foundation in reality.
Words are often the harbinger and signal for physical violence.
Totally agree with you, R Mercer, about the foolishness of the idea that "words can never hurt me". Having been an educator my entire career and a dedicated observer and advocate for child development, I believe the impact of hurtful words on the development of children into functioning, happy adults can be as harmful as physical abuse. Look at the lifelong impact of bullying on people who experienced it as kids (as well as, in my opinion, the sometimes equally bad impact on the lives of the bully-ers).
And children who are emotionally abused by their parents are just as damaged emotionally as children who are physically abused.
And let's fast forward that to adults. Aggressive, abusive, insulting words are absolutely a form of violence, and as we have all seen throughout our lives (Jan. 6 being a great example) very often leads to physical violence.
I disagree. Verbal "harm can be far more reaching and difficult to overcome than bruises or cuts or broken bones." If a person is fragile & insecure and easily triggered by words, then they are likely in need of cognitive behavioral therapy. People are responsible for their own emotions & reactions. Accusing others for making themselves feel bad as akin to violence is a major distortion of the meaning of violence in my opinion. A person that PHYSICALLY attacks someone because they were VERBALLY insulted is the one committing violence not the person that made the insulting remark. It would be nice if everyone was civil & respectful of others feelings, but labeling their speech as violent just because people's feelings were hurt or contradicts their own beliefs is hyperbolic pearl clutching.
I have seen real harm done with words. This is particularly true with adolescents. There is an amazing number of insecure and easily triggered people in the world, particularly younger people. This has become even more prevalent in our "socially engaged" social media world, where all you actually have are words.
Words are far more dangerous than you seem to think. Their effects more far-reaching than you think. I have studied language and its use and misuse for several decades and people always underestimate the power of words or somehow think that their use and effect is less severe or powerful than something like hitting somebody in the face.
What bothers me about the trandsgender dispute is that both takes could be true: that inter-sex and gender disphoria are real as a heart attack AND that there is a bit of a fad regarding them. I hope we can trust the doctors to sort things out.
Realistically, we can't trust doctors to sort it out. I'm not saying this is doctors' fault. Or mainstream medicine's fault. By all means, bet on mainstream medicine over the alternatives!
It's still betting, though, and there will be losers. Especially among people who don't socially fit the profile of "good patient".
I think this is essentially correct. I believe that it is real in a relatively small number of cases (relative in proportion to 7 billion people). The absolute number would be fairly large. I also believe there is something of a fad thing going on as well--based upon what I see at the high school I teach at.
It is cool to be otherly gendered and it is a statement of individuality and identity that sets you apart. For some people it is real and for other people it is simply a phase they are going through.
The problem is in telling the difference, because the people going through it don't know--how am I supposed to know? The reality is that only time will tell.
Just from speaking to my trans friends--It takes a TEAM of doctors and therapists to approve surgery. Even getting hormones is extremely challenging.
And the trans community approves of this. Nobody moves forward with transition on a whim. They're doing fine taking responsibility for their lives; the rest of us should leave them the hell alone.
I agree there's a faddish component, but those people already grow out of it without harm.
It's going to be a very rare case where minors are allowed to have gender reassignment surgery, if it ever happens at all. Again, there's a huge amount of oversight in the process, even for adults. I have a friend that spent the better part of a decade working towards surgical transition, saved up for it, and paid for it out of pocket. Nobody goes through that process on a whim--it's quite arduous. (She's much happier now, BTW.)
There are folks who derive money and power from selling you alarming and outrageous myths about things.
The whole trans phenomenon was really uncomfortable and weird to me at first, and like you, I had a lot of concerns. Since then, I've seen conclusively how real the need to transition can be, how careful and serious the medical professionals are, and that it improves lives.
Exactly. If freedom and liberty are supposedly your watchwords--why are you unwilling to give people the freedom and liberty to live their lives because YOU don't approve of what they want. It isn't and shouldn't be up to you but to the person whose life it is.
Understood--the thing is that it isn't actually easy to get that surgery. You don't walk into a clinic and get it done.
It is also hideously expensive, like most medical procedures in this country.
Doctors aren't chomping at the bit to do these surgeries and aren't usually (AFAIK) pressuring people into them unlike, say, a lot of various plastic surgeries or hair transplants or surgical eye correction.
In GA, the latest Landmark poll shows my treasonous Congressman Jody Hice leads Brad Raffensperger 35-18% ahead of next month's Republican primary. No chance on the SOS letting Democrats win NEXT time.
There should have been a grassroots movement like what is going on in Madison Cawthorne's district. Democrats are changing their party registration just so they can vote against him in the primary. Why can't Dem voters in GA do the same?
No need! GA is an open primary state! We don't register by party and you can vote in either primary this year, and a different one next time if you choose. But the Democrats are so confident after their wins in 2020 that they aren't bothering with this. They think Stacey Abrams will win in November. And they're setting millions of dollars on fire to unseat Marjorie Taylor Greene instead of just crossing over like you suggested.
I thought Stephen King had the best take - and the best advice - on book banning. He said this as both an author who's had books of his banned and as a former teacher:
“Censorship and the suppression of reading materials are rarely about family values and almost always about control, about who is snapping the whip, who is saying no, and who is saying go. Censorship's bottom line is this: if the novel Christine offends me, I don't want just to make sure it's kept from my kid; I want to make sure it's kept from your kid, as well, and all the kids. This bit of intellectual arrogance, undemocratic and as old as time, is best expressed this way: "If it's bad for me and my family, it's bad for everyone's family."
Yet when books are run out of school classrooms and even out of school libraries as a result of this idea, I'm never much disturbed not as a citizen, not as a writer, not even as a schoolteacher . . . which I used to be. What I tell kids is, Don't get mad, get even. Don't spend time waving signs or carrying petitions around the neighborhood. Instead, run, don't walk, to the nearest nonschool library or to the local bookstore and get whatever it was that they banned. Read whatever they're trying to keep out of your eyes and your brain, because that's exactly what you need to know.”
Re. Book banning, the caveat at the end notwithstanding, lazy analysis I think. & it a recurring theme here. More or less equal space and weight given to the right and far left, even when one side uses the government/judiciary/legislative bodies to force their way and the other side often has individuals/private entities or "minor" leaders (the Squad for e.g.) calling for some extreme measure (which is almost always rejected by the lefty leaders who actually matter). Straight out of the right-wing playbook. Use a shade of grey from the other side to excuse/justify their much darker positions. No nuance.
Every time I see a "free speech" debate in the news or media, it's always at least partially wrong about what "free speech" is. The "Law and Order" party is saying they want the government to regulate speech, apparently without irony, which IS a violation of free speech. But as many people over and over have pointed out, free speech doesn't apply to private businesses. So, if your privately-owned bookstore doesn't want to stock the Very Hungry Caterpillar, they don't have to. I actually understand the liberal outrage--some ideas are dangerous in the public square and it'd be better for certain segments of the population if they weren't out there--but not one bit the conservative outrage, especially since they're the ones in the media complaining about being "canceled," which has many times erroneously been compared to losing one's right to free speech.
Repeat it after me and remember it: Speech has consequences.
The role of the private sphere is to provide those consequences... whether through counter-speech or shunning or economic sanctions. This is part of the battle of the "marketplace of ideas." It has always been how these battles are decided. Not on the merits of the ideas, not on actual argumentation, but on how popular the idea is and the actions (of various types) used to advance the idea.
And we have turned this into a bad thing, in search of political advantage.
Any private entity (corporate or personal) has the right (within the limits of existing law) of attaching consequences to speech and ideas they do not like. It is only right and proper (within the "marketplace" concept) that they should be free to do so and that they actually do so.
The First Amendment does not apply, except to protect the right of these private entities to do what they are doing (and the right of their foes to act in relation to that, again within the limit of the law).
There is a difference between a bookstore and a library. Between a public school and a private school, between actual public speech on a public forum and speech on a private forum (which is what Twitter and Facebook, et al actually are). They are NOT "town squares" as much as they might want to appear to be one.
Using your economic choices and your own speech to combat what you find offensive or wrong is one thing. Using government power to do so is QUITE another thing, regardless of what you feel your justification is.
Too many people want consequence free speech. That's not how it works. It has NEVER worked that way.
It is in the consequences of the speech--and how they play out, the decides the battle.
“Don't join the book burners. Don't think you're going to conceal faults by concealing evidence that they ever existed. Don't be afraid to go in your library and read every book...”
I agree with you on a lot of things, but equating (even slightly) government book banning with someone deciding whether or not to carry a book at their own store is a false equivalency. Today's "conservatives" cheer decisions when a person refuses to provide a service to a gay couple on "religious grounds," but decry a private party's decision not to carry a particular book. As for me, I abhor any government control of speech, but support an individual's (as well as a business's) decision not to carry a particular product.
When books get banned or shunned, it makes me want to buy them.
The mayor of Ridgeland, Mississippi just recently cut off funding to the local library, demanding that all "homosexual materials" be removed. This occurred after the library put out a display that included several LGBT-oriented books. The library refused to allow such censorship and raised over $100,000 to remain in operation through the fall.
Once lawyers got involved, the city changed its story and said they were merely looking to renegotiate their contract with the library, thus allowing them to include language in the contract enabling the city to object to books and displays of "adult material", referring to books depicting LGBT individuals.
The entire series of events was triggered by the chairman of the board of a conservative think tank based in Mississippi called the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, who lodged the complaint about the books with the Ridgeland mayor. What I find remarkable is that if they had demanded that the library remove all books depicting African-Americans, the law would be clear on the legality of such a request. But somehow the same standard doesn't apply to LGBT individuals.
Banning books seems so old fashioned. It's ridiculous to ban classics for being racist when it gives us a view of how bad the world had been. And equally ridiculous is banning books because you don't agree with something the author says or believes.
Here is a true story. I read a book that was one of the most beautifully written books I ever read. Not just the subject, which was creativity, but the language was exquisite. I didn't recognize the author by her name which was a common one. A friend then told me who she was, and it turned out to be someone I not only knew but hated. She was one of the most obnoxious, loud mouth, nasty people I'd ever met. I was shocked because knowing this was the author of this gorgeous book did not make me like her or dislike the book. I don't know what that has to do with book banning or author banning, but if you enjoy a book it does not mean you have to enjoy the author. I also heard Mother Teresa was a nasty old woman who belittled and criticized people constantly. Does that make her good works with orphans any less?
Slow down. Quit reacting to the reacting to the reacting. Maybe people need to read some more books instead of just reacting to them.
People on these threads need to stop bashing Charlie and everyone for criticizing the left when it is deserved. I'm a (moderate) progressive, and though I sometimes disagree with Charlie's "tough love for our Progressive friends" moments, I'm absolutely grateful for them.
This is one of the few online political sites that hasn't been arguably compromised by audience capture, and we need to ensure it stays that way. I don't want the Bulwark to become the leftist version of "Common Sense with Bari Weiss", where it ends up being such comfort food for those of us on the left that we have to worry they're afraid to alienate us by pointing out some of the obvious problems with progressive illiberalism and overreach.
If you want unmitigated criticism of the right, along with the convenient swatting away of any criticism of the left as an overwrought Republican talking point (all served up with a generous helping of toxic progressive cliches about "whiteness", "colonialism", and "violent speech"), there are plenty of places for that. This isn't one of them.
Thank you for saying this!
Some people don't realize how much Charlie and Mona have had to change their tunes. I've read some of their columns from way back in the day. Still a bit too much Reagan worship for my taste, but they've had to re-calibrate quite a bit. Also, the commenters on Bulwark+ are definitely some of the more reasonable commenters out there (I read a lot of newsletters).
Outstanding piece from Jim about Steve King...the last paragraph is brilliant!
Why are we celebrating the substitution of adjudication for legislation? Is this a conservative ideal? Unqualified lame duck Trump lifetime appointment overrides CDC. Yay?
Why is it so hard for adults to wear a surgical mask on an airplane to protect an infant or toddler too young to wear one? It is too much to ask of people to protect youngest children on an airplane just in case?
I am trying to understand why a people and party who care so much about families and children and commerce are so obsessed with comfort that they would risk a child’s well being.
Still trying to understand the conservative viewpoint. Failing.
Take your choice. Mix and match. 1. They discovered they could win favor by saying that mask or vaccine requirements are oppressive. 2. Republicans don't care much about people who have been born. See infant mortality rates and murder rates in red states. 3. There are no conservatives in the Republican Party. 4. Divide and conquer works extremely well for the GOP. 5. Sometimes the last words of people dying of covid are to say that covid doesn't exist,. That's the power of disinformation. 6. There's a lot of money in encouraging people to die unnecessarily (see Fox News). 7. The pope had the right idea: Getting vaccinated is an act of love. Republicans hate the pope because he is actually a Christian. The Republican version of Christianity is based on dominating society, not caring about people.
On the whole speech is violence thing:
Speech IS often a form of violence or aggression. Them are fightin' words. We often use speech as a form of violence and oppression/suppression because we are not free to use actual violence.
Words are used with the intention to harm. While you may not bleed on the outside and no bones were broken, you were harmed--and that harm can be far more reaching and difficult to overcome than bruises or cuts or broken bones. I see the harm that words do every day and this has become ever more prevalent in the age of social media.
And that harm can become pervasive if others take up the idea and act upon the words in various ways... especially if they get government support.
Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me is a foolish children's rhyme, without actual foundation in reality.
Words are often the harbinger and signal for physical violence.
Totally agree with you, R Mercer, about the foolishness of the idea that "words can never hurt me". Having been an educator my entire career and a dedicated observer and advocate for child development, I believe the impact of hurtful words on the development of children into functioning, happy adults can be as harmful as physical abuse. Look at the lifelong impact of bullying on people who experienced it as kids (as well as, in my opinion, the sometimes equally bad impact on the lives of the bully-ers).
And children who are emotionally abused by their parents are just as damaged emotionally as children who are physically abused.
And let's fast forward that to adults. Aggressive, abusive, insulting words are absolutely a form of violence, and as we have all seen throughout our lives (Jan. 6 being a great example) very often leads to physical violence.
I disagree. Verbal "harm can be far more reaching and difficult to overcome than bruises or cuts or broken bones." If a person is fragile & insecure and easily triggered by words, then they are likely in need of cognitive behavioral therapy. People are responsible for their own emotions & reactions. Accusing others for making themselves feel bad as akin to violence is a major distortion of the meaning of violence in my opinion. A person that PHYSICALLY attacks someone because they were VERBALLY insulted is the one committing violence not the person that made the insulting remark. It would be nice if everyone was civil & respectful of others feelings, but labeling their speech as violent just because people's feelings were hurt or contradicts their own beliefs is hyperbolic pearl clutching.
I have seen real harm done with words. This is particularly true with adolescents. There is an amazing number of insecure and easily triggered people in the world, particularly younger people. This has become even more prevalent in our "socially engaged" social media world, where all you actually have are words.
Words are far more dangerous than you seem to think. Their effects more far-reaching than you think. I have studied language and its use and misuse for several decades and people always underestimate the power of words or somehow think that their use and effect is less severe or powerful than something like hitting somebody in the face.
There's a reason totalitarian governments jail the intellectuals.
What bothers me about the trandsgender dispute is that both takes could be true: that inter-sex and gender disphoria are real as a heart attack AND that there is a bit of a fad regarding them. I hope we can trust the doctors to sort things out.
The doctors have no vote in the question.
Doctors have no say in what they prescribe or in what procedures they perform?
Hi. I wasn't clear. I meant that doctors won't the ones who make political decisions.
Realistically, we can't trust doctors to sort it out. I'm not saying this is doctors' fault. Or mainstream medicine's fault. By all means, bet on mainstream medicine over the alternatives!
It's still betting, though, and there will be losers. Especially among people who don't socially fit the profile of "good patient".
I think this is essentially correct. I believe that it is real in a relatively small number of cases (relative in proportion to 7 billion people). The absolute number would be fairly large. I also believe there is something of a fad thing going on as well--based upon what I see at the high school I teach at.
It is cool to be otherly gendered and it is a statement of individuality and identity that sets you apart. For some people it is real and for other people it is simply a phase they are going through.
The problem is in telling the difference, because the people going through it don't know--how am I supposed to know? The reality is that only time will tell.
And NOT talking about is is NOT helpful.
Right, best to talk--but perhaps not to begin surgical adaptations.
Just from speaking to my trans friends--It takes a TEAM of doctors and therapists to approve surgery. Even getting hormones is extremely challenging.
And the trans community approves of this. Nobody moves forward with transition on a whim. They're doing fine taking responsibility for their lives; the rest of us should leave them the hell alone.
I agree there's a faddish component, but those people already grow out of it without harm.
I was thinking of the issue around minors and surgery.
It's going to be a very rare case where minors are allowed to have gender reassignment surgery, if it ever happens at all. Again, there's a huge amount of oversight in the process, even for adults. I have a friend that spent the better part of a decade working towards surgical transition, saved up for it, and paid for it out of pocket. Nobody goes through that process on a whim--it's quite arduous. (She's much happier now, BTW.)
There are folks who derive money and power from selling you alarming and outrageous myths about things.
The whole trans phenomenon was really uncomfortable and weird to me at first, and like you, I had a lot of concerns. Since then, I've seen conclusively how real the need to transition can be, how careful and serious the medical professionals are, and that it improves lives.
Exactly. If freedom and liberty are supposedly your watchwords--why are you unwilling to give people the freedom and liberty to live their lives because YOU don't approve of what they want. It isn't and shouldn't be up to you but to the person whose life it is.
I was thinking of the minors and surgery issue.
Understood--the thing is that it isn't actually easy to get that surgery. You don't walk into a clinic and get it done.
It is also hideously expensive, like most medical procedures in this country.
Doctors aren't chomping at the bit to do these surgeries and aren't usually (AFAIK) pressuring people into them unlike, say, a lot of various plastic surgeries or hair transplants or surgical eye correction.
In GA, the latest Landmark poll shows my treasonous Congressman Jody Hice leads Brad Raffensperger 35-18% ahead of next month's Republican primary. No chance on the SOS letting Democrats win NEXT time.
There should have been a grassroots movement like what is going on in Madison Cawthorne's district. Democrats are changing their party registration just so they can vote against him in the primary. Why can't Dem voters in GA do the same?
No need! GA is an open primary state! We don't register by party and you can vote in either primary this year, and a different one next time if you choose. But the Democrats are so confident after their wins in 2020 that they aren't bothering with this. They think Stacey Abrams will win in November. And they're setting millions of dollars on fire to unseat Marjorie Taylor Greene instead of just crossing over like you suggested.
I thought Stephen King had the best take - and the best advice - on book banning. He said this as both an author who's had books of his banned and as a former teacher:
“Censorship and the suppression of reading materials are rarely about family values and almost always about control, about who is snapping the whip, who is saying no, and who is saying go. Censorship's bottom line is this: if the novel Christine offends me, I don't want just to make sure it's kept from my kid; I want to make sure it's kept from your kid, as well, and all the kids. This bit of intellectual arrogance, undemocratic and as old as time, is best expressed this way: "If it's bad for me and my family, it's bad for everyone's family."
Yet when books are run out of school classrooms and even out of school libraries as a result of this idea, I'm never much disturbed not as a citizen, not as a writer, not even as a schoolteacher . . . which I used to be. What I tell kids is, Don't get mad, get even. Don't spend time waving signs or carrying petitions around the neighborhood. Instead, run, don't walk, to the nearest nonschool library or to the local bookstore and get whatever it was that they banned. Read whatever they're trying to keep out of your eyes and your brain, because that's exactly what you need to know.”
Re. Book banning, the caveat at the end notwithstanding, lazy analysis I think. & it a recurring theme here. More or less equal space and weight given to the right and far left, even when one side uses the government/judiciary/legislative bodies to force their way and the other side often has individuals/private entities or "minor" leaders (the Squad for e.g.) calling for some extreme measure (which is almost always rejected by the lefty leaders who actually matter). Straight out of the right-wing playbook. Use a shade of grey from the other side to excuse/justify their much darker positions. No nuance.
Every time I see a "free speech" debate in the news or media, it's always at least partially wrong about what "free speech" is. The "Law and Order" party is saying they want the government to regulate speech, apparently without irony, which IS a violation of free speech. But as many people over and over have pointed out, free speech doesn't apply to private businesses. So, if your privately-owned bookstore doesn't want to stock the Very Hungry Caterpillar, they don't have to. I actually understand the liberal outrage--some ideas are dangerous in the public square and it'd be better for certain segments of the population if they weren't out there--but not one bit the conservative outrage, especially since they're the ones in the media complaining about being "canceled," which has many times erroneously been compared to losing one's right to free speech.
Speech has consequences...
Repeat it after me and remember it: Speech has consequences.
The role of the private sphere is to provide those consequences... whether through counter-speech or shunning or economic sanctions. This is part of the battle of the "marketplace of ideas." It has always been how these battles are decided. Not on the merits of the ideas, not on actual argumentation, but on how popular the idea is and the actions (of various types) used to advance the idea.
And we have turned this into a bad thing, in search of political advantage.
Any private entity (corporate or personal) has the right (within the limits of existing law) of attaching consequences to speech and ideas they do not like. It is only right and proper (within the "marketplace" concept) that they should be free to do so and that they actually do so.
The First Amendment does not apply, except to protect the right of these private entities to do what they are doing (and the right of their foes to act in relation to that, again within the limit of the law).
There is a difference between a bookstore and a library. Between a public school and a private school, between actual public speech on a public forum and speech on a private forum (which is what Twitter and Facebook, et al actually are). They are NOT "town squares" as much as they might want to appear to be one.
Using your economic choices and your own speech to combat what you find offensive or wrong is one thing. Using government power to do so is QUITE another thing, regardless of what you feel your justification is.
Too many people want consequence free speech. That's not how it works. It has NEVER worked that way.
It is in the consequences of the speech--and how they play out, the decides the battle.
“Don't join the book burners. Don't think you're going to conceal faults by concealing evidence that they ever existed. Don't be afraid to go in your library and read every book...”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower
I agree with you on a lot of things, but equating (even slightly) government book banning with someone deciding whether or not to carry a book at their own store is a false equivalency. Today's "conservatives" cheer decisions when a person refuses to provide a service to a gay couple on "religious grounds," but decry a private party's decision not to carry a particular book. As for me, I abhor any government control of speech, but support an individual's (as well as a business's) decision not to carry a particular product.