Welcome to being a human. Collectivism is built in. No man is an island and all that.

The question worth exploring is how to balance individual and collective needs.

Using "collectivism" as a pejorative gets us nowhere.

Yes, particularly with controlling what can be said, especially political speech.

It's kind of crazy that we finally agreed that the government doesn't have the right to unfairly treat two gay dudes who want to get married, but now if someone doesn't want to serve them the cake the government can force you to. No matter how righteous either act, we just traded one form of tyranny for another and made no progress in understanding the importance of the lesson. When can we just agree that telling you what to think should have never been a legitimate role of government in the first place? It is a concept fundamentally and completely opposed to democracy and individual liberty.

Is it a similarly-terrifying tyranny when the government forces restaurants to serve black people?

You know I can appreciate some good snarkiness like this; but to be fair, governments almost always sell tyranny to the people in the name of moral righteousness.

I guess what it comes down to is what you fear more: tyranny or some racist people with restaurants.

Like what happened in lord of the flies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Almost everyone would agree at least some things should be illegal to express or share, like child pornography or calls to physical violence.

Human rights end at where someone else’s rights begin. It’s obvious following from this that perpetrating physical violence on the innocent is wrong and must be stopped. But what of people who glorify, encourage or publicly plan to do such a thing? Do you always have to wait until people translate toxic words into toxic actions?

>Do you always have to wait until people translate toxic words into toxic actions?

Yes. Otherwise we are attempting policing through pre-crime. Also, `toxic` is always subjective. It becomes a useful vehicle by which the definition will always be expanded to include what someone dislikes.

I consider the discussion of fruit, that can be shaped like human genitalia a insult to my religion. Thus i demand, the bannishment of cooking recipes from the internet, to protect the worlds morals.

Who are you to judge my religion and culture wrong and vane?

How naive are you? I would say that an ideology that advocates for racial or ethnic cleansing should not be shared. I would say that sexually explicit images of children who are emotionally traumatized should not be shared. As someone mentioned above, when the speech advocates for the harming of other people, it should not be shared.

Yet this is exactly why speech must be protected. Speech is always lost in the interest of what would appear the public good. You start with what most would agree to be speech that should not be shared.

Some entity must then be given power to determine what qualifies as that speech. This is then the point speech is lost. Once someone has the power to determine what people can say, then that becomes the vehicle through which it will be undermined. The definition of what is acceptable will continue to change as the state will want to keep expanding its power of `public good`. This becomes a selling point to the public to support such efforts while the state will continue to silence opposition to its interests with support of the public as all will be framed in the interest of protecting the public.