None of this is to deny that the right has its own massive free-speech problems, or that it routinely weaponizes “cancel culture” to defend its bad behavior while canceling its own dissenters. Heck, even the Kremlin is weaponizing cancel-culture tropes to vent its grievances about sanctions in retaliation for Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine—even as the Putin regime cancels the last remnants of a free press in Russia, has elderly women arrested for protesting, and takes political correctness to a new level by banning the word “war” in reference to the “special operation.”

The plight of Russian dissidents is also a salutary reminder that for all our “cancel culture” debates, we are incredibly privileged compared to most of the world when it comes to freedom of speech. The First Amendment protects us from suppression of speech by the government, and it does so much more effectively than it did a hundred years ago. Being fired or publicly pilloried over a “bad” opinion or a misunderstood remark is bad, but it’s still not up there with being harassed by the police, having your computer confiscated, or being arrested—let alone being sent to a penal colony.

Nonetheless, the culture of free speech and intellectual tolerance does matter, and the free exchange of opinions and ideas that is the lifeblood of liberal democracy can be severely curtailed by mob rule as well government—even if the mob is a digital one. Progressive censoriousness may not be the same as censorship, but it is very likely to undermine the robustness of First Amendment protections: Surveys already show that only 30 percent of all college students, compared to 57 percent of all American adults, understand that the First Amendment protects so-called hate speech. (Ocasio-Cortez’s dismissive remark about “[F]irst [A]mendment screeds” as a “service for the powerful” doesn’t exactly foster respect for First Amendment freedoms.)