Ken over at Popehat has a good post on all the “incendiary rhetoric” going on this week, and the claims of censorship by those who are criticized for employing it.
No, you stupid, stupid woman, it is not [you'll have to read the whole thing to learn who this is. It's good]. Speech is not tyranny. Criticism — even unfair and intemperate criticism — is not censorship. I don’t care who tells you it is. It is more speech, the thing we use instead of censorship. The entire premise of our approach to freedom of expression is that we do not censor speech that some find to be hateful, harmful, and wrong because those people can stand up and call it hateful, harmful, and wrong. Cry “censorship” when your speech gets you sued or locked up. Cry “that’s a call for censorship” when someone says your speech ought to get you sued or locked up. But when your speech gets you vilified, mocked, condemned, and called out as morally responsible for awful things — however unjustly — that’s not censorship, and if you say it is, you’re a whiny twit with contempt for the principles underlying the Constitution of the United States. That’s a feature, not a bug, of the First Amendment. The marketplace of ideas gets rough. Wear a cup.
Since this was a tribute to a previous post he wrote, you should read Speech is Tyranny! if you get the chance. Good stuff.