Ms Southern's major error is suggesting that non-State forms of suppression can be just as bad as State censorship. Yes, the shaming, slanders, boycotts, protests, disinvites, and bans (from private organizations and/or property) can be very unfair. They can even temporarily ruin lives. But they're not nearly as terrible as a policeman's jackboot stomping on your face. Or prison.
Regarding the Breitbart piece: it muddies the waters terribly to call someone a "cultural libertarian" just because he or she's proudly "politically incorrect.". Several of these people support State policies that are anti-immigrant and/or anti-Muslim. There's nothing "libertarian" about that, and particularly nothing "culturally" libertarian.
Cheers to them, and anyone else, who is tolerant of other people's speech and expression. Who protest speech codes, reveal arbitrary and biased censorship on Internet platforms, expose hypocrisy, etc.. But I think the word "tolerance" will do quite nicely. I won't label anyone as any kind of libertarian when they're not.
James Leroy Wilson's blog
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
It's tolerance, NOT "cultural libertarianism"
I posted this comment at Garry Reed's Examiner story "'Cultural Libertarianism' isn't new, it's just gone international."