The Betrayal of Free Thought: How Progressivism Turned Into Censorship

By Fred Allan Nyankuru

Once upon a time we looked to progressives as the ultimate champions of freedom. They were the ones on the front lines, fighting for your right to speak your mind without looking over your shoulder, to simply walk down the street as you are, to choose your own path in life. They stood for the idea that true liberty requires space for all kinds of thought; that my conscience is mine, and yours is yours, and tolerance is the only glue that can hold a diverse society together.

But something has shifted. Slowly, almost without us noticing, that noble mission has curdled into its opposite: control. The very voices that once screamed for unfettered expression now build the case for censorship, cancellation, and silence. And the most painful irony? It’s all done in the name of “keeping us safe” or “promoting freedom.” It feels like we’re losing the plot.

Let’s be honest with each other: freedom of opinion was never meant to be clean, comfortable, or convenient. By its very nature, it means hearing things that make your skin crawl. It means someone can stand up and say, “I’m not comfortable with homosexuality,” just as freely as another can say, “I’m not comfortable with heterosexuality.” That isn’t necessarily hatred —it’s the messy, often ugly, exercise of human thought. If we can’t even voice discomfort without being socially shunned or professionally destroyed, then freedom is already dead. We’ve just replaced old shackles with new ones.

And this is where I see today’s progressivism tying itself in knots. For my entire life, we’ve tolerated —even celebrated comedians, writers, and critics who mock Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Religious folks are routinely called backward, oppressive, or simple-minded. And you know what? When they complained, society told them to toughen up. Free speech includes the right to offend, we said. It was a hard pill, but it was the price of a free society.

So why do the rules change when the subject is LGBTQI+ identities? Why is questioning or disagreeing treated not as debate, but as “hate speech,” while ridiculing a nun or a rabbi is still considered fair game? Why do tech giants, governments, and NGOs move so fast to silEnce dissent on this one issue, while giving almost everything else a pass?

It feels targeted. It feels political. Big tech hides behind “community standards” to scrub away views they don’t like. Global institutions lean on countries to adopt values that feel alien to them. The media doesn’t report on the debate; it takes a side and glorifies it while demonising the other. We’re no longer being asked to tolerate; we’re being strong-armed into celebrating. Coexistence has been replaced with coerced consent.

But that’s not freedom. Let’s be real: freedom doesn’t mean everyone agrees with me. It means I’ll fight for your right to say something I think is dead wrong. It means making room in the public square for opinions that make us squirm. When we only protect the speech we like, we don’t have liberty, we have propaganda.

Think about it: if you can’t say “I disagree with that” today without losing your job or your reputation, what will we not be allowed to question tomorrow? Once we normalise the censor’s tools, they won’t be put away. That machinery never stops at one group. It expands, slowly and surely, until any dissent is treated as a thought crime.

That’s why this matters. Defending free speech for people I disagree with isn’t a quirk; it’s essential. Protecting your right to critique my religion means protecting my right to question your politics. Protecting someone’s right to mock tradition means protecting another’s right to challenge the new orthodoxy. The moment we silence one voice, we build the scaffold to silence any voice.

So here’s my plea: let’s find our way back to the original, brave spirit of liberty. Let’s disagree fiercely, passionately, relentlessly. But let’s never silence. Let’s stop confusing disagreement with hatred, critique with bigotry, and discomfort with violence. If my opinion offends you, come at me with a better argument, not a cancellation. If my words challenge your beliefs, challenge mine right back with words of your own.

History isn’t kind to societies that silence dissent. They don’t find harmony; they find conformity, fear, and a quiet, rotting decay. Real progress —the kind that lasts only happens where freedom thrives. Especially the freedom to be wrong.

If progressivism wants to reclaim its moral soul, it needs to remember that. A world where everyone is forced to clap in unison, where no one can whisper “I disagree,” isn’t progressive. It’s a prison dressed up as a parade. And I, for one, want no part of it.