So Australian ex-pat David Glasgow makes a good point:
Don’t get me wrong; there is nothing helpful about the use of sweeping generalisations and epithets to dismiss political opponents, no matter what side they are on.
But here’s the difficulty: bigotry, misogyny, racism and transphobia do exist, and the boundaries of those concepts shift as social mores evolve. Ideas are not locked in a state of equilibrium, and no one is entitled to have their views considered permanently respectable.
So while it is understandable that traditionalists lament the decline of their ideas on certain topics – particularly those that relate to sexual freedom – losing a public debate is not the same thing as being silenced or bullied.
Quite right – arguments are won and lost every day, and tomorrow is another day. But the thing is this – generally the community will decide who has won or lost an argument. Anti-free speech laws have judges telling us who has won or lost an argument. That is a silencing. It is unlawful in Australia, for example, to say that white is not black. It may soon become unlawful to argue that marriage should be between a man and a woman. It might soon be unlawful for students at a public university to protest about being excluded from using computer facilities funded by the taxpayer. There is a huge difference between some views and opinions becoming impolite and those same views becoming unlawful.
The most interesting aspect of Mr Glasgow’s views on free speech is that he writes from New York State in the United States. His right to free speech is protected by the first amendment to the US constitution, and the second amendment too. Here is Australia we have none of those rights.