> notably the potential transgender pronoun compulsion laws

Which, in my opinion, go clearly a step farther than just censoring offensive language. I can understand the latter to some degree, but forcing people to replace certain words in their communication only differs from Orwell's dystopia in the size of the dictionary.

It's a dilemma: huge communities like Facebook cannot really be moderated effectively and are a fertile ground for disinformation, conspiracy theories and spreading hate. At the same time we don't want to limit speech more than absolutely necessary.

To me it's clear we simply are not (yet?) mentally prepared for information exchange and communities in this global magnitude. It can be positive when followers of a niche hobby can get together, but the same mechanism is dangerous in contact with targeted disinformation campaigns and cults.

you know what else is fertile ground for disinformation and conspiracy theories? literally every single protest i have ever attended. and yet we recognize that the right to assembly far outweighs the impact of a couple schizoid burnouts talking about tower 7 and the zog. the same is true of the internet.

a censorship regime will not make people any more prepared to handle free and open discourse, it will only enable those in power to further marginalize those who aren't. imo what is vitally needed is education on media literacy, this should be considered just as important as history or civics. give people the tools for growth.

> but forcing people to replace certain words in their communication only differs from Orwell's dystopia in the size of the dictionary.

It's dystopian that people can't hurl the N-word at each other?

But they absolutely can hurl the N-word at each other. It is frowned upon for good reason, but it's not illegal.

What I was talking about was the proposal to actually force people to refer to others by their preferred pronouns. I am not against new pronouns, but the government should not enforce such a change in how people communicate. Language evolves naturally with society, not the other way around. Also there's enough evidence that banning bad words does not work and people always find a new way to piss off others. After all it's the symptom, not the cause.

Is there such a proposal? What does it actually say? I'm asking because gender recognition acts have been systematically misrepresented by the media.

In my country, you're not allowed to use the N-Word on purpose as an insult.

In Canada, you're not allowed to misgender people on purpose to harass them. You can not use their pronouns at all, or you can use wrong pronouns by accident, but you can't use someone's wrong pronouns repeatedly on purpose to harass them.

It's not anymore compelled speech than disallowing people from using the n word for the purpose of harassment.

taboo words and acts are defined by the moral majority. 15 years ago that same moral majority believed i didn't deserve the right to be married, we are still well within living memory of a time when it was entirely acceptable to call someone a nigger but two men who kissed were liable to lose their jobs. free speech is the most fundamental tool we have for ensuring equal rights and dignity. that is worth far more than getting rid of a few marginal edgelords.