By Anthony Matoria
American society is in the midst of a vigorous meta-debate concerning censorship, free speech, and democracy.  This debate is, at times, difficult to follow because of the apparent contradictions and double-speak that it produces. It may be useful to make some distinctions that are inherent in this discourse.
The first such distinction is in what different parties mean by the term “democracy.”  There is a progressive faction that insists that, for example, social media suppression of certain views is essential to “our democracy.”  Free speech is therefore a potential threat to democracy, a counter-intuitive claim.
The progressive view of democracy is that people are granted the ability to choose among limited possibilities that are acceptable to globalist elites.  The concept is familiar to parents who influence their children’s behavior by providing only acceptable choices: rather than asking if the child wants to brush his teeth, the parents ask if the child wants to use a blue or red toothbrush.  The progressive uses the same tactic: do you want increased immigration from lax border enforcement or reform of legal immigration laws, or both?  Do you want to eliminate fossil fuels with carbon taxes or subsidies for renewable energy or both?  And so on.  “Democracy” in this context is the illusion of choice provided by choosing among the options acceptable to elite opinion.
