(Besides, I think that the "outraged" crowd often shoots themselves in the foot. If the content is not terribly out of taste, then the controversial content often get an added allure that may make it more popular. This was even true in much older times, books that were "banned in Boston" in the early 20th century often became more popular as a result...)
Oh, I think this is very different now from when it was happening back in time. Back in the 60s-80s, younger generations were the ones actually fighting for the Freedom of Expression. Nowadays the younger generation is the one pushing for harder stances to make people shut up. Look at safe zones in university campuses, it's actively enforced by students themselves.
To pick a hopefully neutral example, should it be "safe" for you to go to a chess club meeting and diss everybody there because you think Go is superior? They'll ask you to leave, and rightfully so.
It's a good thing to have these small "bubbles" for all sorts of minorities in which they get to define the rules.
Where it gets more interesting is when it affects the broader public sphere. That said, the particular examples you gave are ones where you'd be rightfully excluded depending on how you approach the subject. The evidence seems pretty clear that being gay or trans are real things. It took me some time to figure that out, but I found that as long as I approached the topic in a civil way, others responded in kind.
The problem is that the kind of people who complain about "anti-freedom of expression" or "excessive political correctness" are usually not the kind of people who approach those topics in a civil way. They have a certain foregone conclusion in their minds, and aren't ready to accept anything that contradicts that conclusion. So naturally, they end up being (justly) excluded from the discussion.
Your framing of this issue as simply being about LGBT wanting to be able to meet together without harassment is disingenuous.
The point is: Yes, the public sphere is also changing, but it's changing slowly, and the participants of the discussion who see a danger to freedom of speech are >95% hysterically exaggerating.
Meanwhile, it's good to keep in mind that there are <5% crazies in every group, including chess players and LGBT people. Listening to them is never a good idea.
[0] When you dig down, what you usually find is some minor committee discussing whether they should change the language used in their own bylaws and/or publications. I.e. it's not legislation, nobody is being forced to do anything, and most of these initiatives don't even pass in the first place.
> Examples of Violations
> a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses
[snip]
> And this isn’t just the government as employer, requiring its employees to say things that keep government patrons happy with government services. This is the government as sovereign, threatening “civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct” if people don’t speak the way the government tells them to speak.
Also, that entire last paragraph requires a great of assumption and stereotyping on your part.
Do our college students really need to be kept "safe" from mere disagreement?
Quite the opposite. Typically safe space warriors are demanding that people have different rights in public based on their genetics, not the same rights.
E.g. "You're a white man so shut up, I should have a special right to speak over you because of [XYZ]."
Here are some examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK4MBzp5YwM
Part of maturing is learning how to stand for one's ideas and beliefs, as well as learning how to deal with (bigoted) opposition to those. Isolating yourself, locking yourself in the echo chamber will make you unprepared for dialogue with those outside of it, or worse, will end with you radicalizing because you'll grow up with your standing never contested.
This is also going the other way. If you'll remove yourself from discourse, you will willfully marginalize yourself. How can local population know that LGBT people are living among them and are their friends/relatives/normal folk, if those people will lock themselves up in their safe spaces?
My favorite example when it comes to LGBT is polish activist turned politician, [Robert Biedroń](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Biedro%C5%84), who has spent life being vocal and visible activist for LGBT rights - extremely courageous feat in mostly catholic and conservatist Poland. The culmination of his work was gaining enough popular support to become mayor in 100k large city.
If this guy ran in my city, he'll get my vote. Even if I disagree with 90% of what he says because politically he always aligns himself with socialists and I'm moderate, I believe that what he does for making our society less bigoted is worth every support.
Now ask yourself, how many such Biedrońs will not come to be because they'll close themselves in their small worlds in fear of their feelings being hurt by some bigots?
I know you'll argue against that point, but I mention it not for you, but to put what you said into context for other readers.
Is your argument "oh, but racists are also shaping discourse of their societes"?
My post wasn't for you.
And I am confused how anyone here was silenced. This person's views, and the views of everyone who objects, and the views of everyone who objects to the objection, are all public. The video is easily available. Discussion forums that have nothing to do with his usual material, like this one, are discussing it. There's rich public debate about what he said and why he said it, fueled by an independent press that is not constrained to write only what serves those in power (any sort of power), and fueled even more by social media.
This seems like the epitome of freedom of expression. If I saw someone say "Hitler was right" and nobody commented on it, I would wonder where freedom of expression went!
Remember that the position that Hitler was indeed right is not one that lacks for support. The third Google result for me for 'pewdiepie hitler' is from The Daily Stormer, an actual, non-joking Neo-Nazi website, and the comments are celebrating how PewDiePie's viewers are being "red pilled" into understanding that Hitler's position is defensible.
The very notion of "I disagree with you (and will bring it to light) but will defend your right to say it" seems to be dead in modern outrage culture.
PDP: HA HA HA dead jews
His advertisers and many audience members: Not cool
white-flame: But my free speech!
PDP remains free to make any jokes he desires; he's just not free to continue to get his preferred advertising revenue or outlets.
Celebrities, unfortunately, are going to get hit when they say or do things that could piss off a bunch of people. I mean look at Muhammad Ali. He refused the Vietnam War draft as a religious conscientious objector. They stripped his title, his endorsements, and banned him from boxing. Not only that, but the appeals court did not even consider the merits of his case when they upheld the conviction. Or how Charlie Chaplan's passport was revoked after a FBI smear campaign and accusations of communism.
I understand people tend to look at current events in a vacuum, but saying something provocative and only losing endorsements is historically pretty good. Not even 50 years ago he would have had his passport revoked, been falsely accused of a crime, or some shady bureaucracy would have opened a file on him.
I support PewDiePie's right to say whatever he wants. I posted a link to his own video in another comment. I am thrilled to bring it to light. I don't believe that defending his right to say it involves defending his right to receive corporate funding or popular appreciation for what he says; "I disagree but will defend your right" seems to imply quite the opposite to me.
I agree that if you find yourself destitute (or actually lynched) as a result of public outcry, your right to speech is impacted, but I don't believe there's ever been such a case. Can you point me to one?
According to Pewdiepie, the WSJ pushed Google to suspend his Youtube account.
It's worse than that. Richelieu was talking about absolute power of the State. Now the online power is made up of hordes of folks whose only reason to exist is to make their views the predominant ones and silence anyone who's diverging from them, even if that person was simply joking. There's a surprising good share of folks who are anti-Freedom of expression especially in Gen X and Y. Anyone who lived during the 80s would find the present situation intoxicating.