There is only one form of censorship that I feel is effective: self-censorship. “Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.” Telling people what they can and cannot say just triggers more of the same. More hurtful words, more of the same. Instead of telling people what they can say, why not engaeg them on a philosophical basis. Yes, its more time-consuming, and potentially frustrating, and is bound to fail possibly more often than it succeeds. But for those times it DOES succeed, the return on time is far more significant, and leads to lasting, positive change, I feel.

Thanks for your response. An apartheid regime can even be found absent the presence of laws designed to restrict the rights of groups of people. This example by Human Rights Watch has a fairly simply (and I think effective) definition that is effective, and law-based: https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/07/19/israeli-apartheid-threshold-crossed#:~:text=International criminal law%2C including the,by one racial group to

International criminal law, including the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid and the 1998 Rome Statute to the International Criminal Court, define apartheid as a crime against humanity consisting of three primary elements: (1) an intent by one racial group to dominate another; (2) systematic oppression by the dominant group over the marginalized group; and (3) particularly grave abuses known as inhumane acts.

a great melting pot

And all the scum floats to the top.

yeah, a melting pot where no matter what you put in it, you get jim crow soup with interesting spices