> No part of the left-right political spectrum can be said to be the good guys or the bad guys in respect of free expression, especially in the United States.

Maybe across all time, yes. But parties change. Right now there's a clear enemy of free expression, and it's not the right.

The correct play, of course, is to pressure the party that's currently on the anti-free-expression side to back down - even (especially) if that's your "own" party (not like the two major US political parties are very representative of their ostensible constituents) - and that's what the GP is doing.

(you can do this without condemning the ideals of the party as uniformly bad - which is something that a lot of people don't get - attacking a party is not the same as attacking its ideals!)

> Maybe across all time, yes. But parties change. Right now there's a clear enemy of free expression, and it's not the right.

Are you sure about that[1][2][3]? People on the left side of the aisle seem to be invested chiefly in social shame; the right side is actively using the power of the state to control public expression and educational content. Equivocation between the two feels like false balance.

[1]: https://apnews.com/article/florida-race-and-ethnicity-govern...

[2]: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/bert-v-o-connor-complain...

[3]: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta...

> People on the left side of the aisle seem to be invested chiefly in social shame; the right side is actively using the power of the state to control public expression and educational content.

Conversely, even without me digging up any references of the progressive politicians also using the power of government to suppress free speech, it seems like you're making a false distinction.

Progressives are using their power to try to get people fired and unemployable (which is somewhat disingenuous to call "social shame"). When you can make someone unemployable in most of an industry, there's little difference between that and using the government directly. Furthermore, progressives use large tech companies (with power comparable to the state in some respects) to censor speech on their de-facto-town-square social media platforms.

If you want to regulate large technology companies, just say that. You'll find that plenty of people agree with you. Trying to contort private expression into state expression isn't going to get you very far, either in terms of convincing others or legal action.

(FWIW: conflating "progressive" and "left" belies a fundamental misunderstanding of left-of-center politics. It's a misunderstanding that you're going to want to correct if you want people to entertain your positions.)

In my view the prominent politicians and media personalities of both sides shamelessly practice this demagoguery and resort to any means of power to have their way, be it state authority or social pressure. I doubt most of them have any serious conviction in the positions they espouse. Pandering to the desires and prejudices of audiences is an effective tactic for gaining power or just earning a good living. The outcome for the cause du jour is of little importance. What counts is winning the election or growing & maintaining an audience.

I don't have any particularly nice things to say about American politicians from either party. But I don't think we ought to conflate social pressures with top-down policing of speech. The former is a cultural challenge; the latter is a material erosion of civil liberties.