Arguably all American (assuming you mean to refer to the US here) history is recent. In that sense, I would say their history of slavery (and more recently blatant and publicly endorsed racism) is probably a little darker than their trend of putting increasingly confused old men in power.
Freedom of speech means you have freedom from the government. It does not mean you have freedom from societal consequences or that you’re entitled to a platform or audience.
There are many forms of speech which society has decided to censor. We have decided to outlaw libel, slander, perjury, dissemination of child porn or classified info, etc., and we are familiar with many which cause immediate social or business repercussions (generally being an asshole, berating waitstaff, yelling at the top of your lungs in a quiet place, any kind of unwanted speech PN private property, etc.).
And we all know how large swaths of goo voters and a surprisingly high number of democrat voters feel about the integrity of elections.
Regardless of your views, this is a slow motion trainwreck
Correct. But even in the marketplace there are limits for things like discrimination.
> We have decided to outlaw libel, slander, perjury, dissemination of child porn or classified info
Actually those are not constitutionally protected speech. This "censorship" does not come from social norms as you seem to imply, but by the government itself.
> and we are familiar with many which cause immediate social or business repercussions
The White House in a press conference said they were flagging posts to Facebook. This can make Facebook a government actor if they were forced, paid or coerced to do so (which they probably are)
> (generally being an asshole, berating waitstaff, yelling at the top of your lungs in a quiet place, any kind of unwanted speech PN private property, etc.).
You can't mute or block or unfollow someone in most normal social situations. This comparison is dubious at best.
I prefer to associate with those that don't have to be compelled by law to hold up the principle of free speech. Because following the others would only ensure that such rights would have never been implemented.
Or do you mean the bad actors are the ones initiating censoring on behalf of the platforms (via scurrilous flagging of wrongthink, or by mobbing down heterodox opinion). The platforms are taking their cues from politics (government and tech culture) and don't need the reporting system to censor people.
I assume you don't mean there's a lack of reputational cost to bad actors and the bad actors are those who are being censored, as that wouldn't make sense.