In a society that hopes to remain free, there must be a difference between these. There must be space for dialogue, for experimentation, for uncertainty, for personal preference, for disagreement. "Everything which is not prohibited is mandatory" is a totalitarian motto.
For example, although I find Nancy Grace repulsive, illegitimate, unacceptable, unwatchable, and generally awful, at some level I realize she has the right to produce her execrable television programs, and I don't seek to undermine that right.
Perhaps I'm quibbling over a minor point, as I certainly have no quarrel with criticism and boycotts of OSC (or of anyone really), even though I don't choose to take part myself.
Are you actually saying that we should have "discussion" or a "debate" about whether some people are people?
You say that like it's a bad thing.
It is no longer about rights but now it is about acceptance
(a) There are still lots of rights that many states and organisations do not recognise. (b) There is no difference between rights and acceptance/legitimacy.