Why is it that liberals and the soft left, don't understand that censorship aimed at ideas or views that one doesn't agree with is wrong and dangerous, because it's precisely unpopular or wrongspeech that needs protecting, if freedom of speech is to have any real meaning? Popular views and speech, by defintion don't need to be protected for obvious reasons. This isn't exactly rocket science, but pretty rudimentary stuff.
It's disturbing that liberals and the soft left are now some of the leading supporters of curtailing and canceling freedom of speech. They seem blissfully unaware of the potential consequences of this particular rolling stone.
And of course the paradox or irony, or is it just grotesque, that canceling the film, actually illustrates and underlines precisely perspectives and issues the documentary is focusing on.