Both of these case studies present different scenarios in which freedom of speech and expression are addressed. In the Cornell case study, students attempted to put trigger warnings on potentially harmful content, and for Jihad Rehab, a director faced backlash from the public as well as streaming services for what was also perceived to be potentially harmful content. There lies a paradox in these scenarios and others alike; a society that is so progressive and inclusive is simultaneously dismissing any form of controversy or dissenting opinion. How will society learn and understand difficult and challenging topics if we continue to dismiss them? Austrian philosopher Karl Popper said “the increase of knowledge depends entirely on the existence of disagreement.” (Masferrer et al.). If universities, film makers, journalists, writers, and so much more, exclude the knowledge of a disagreeing opinion, society will become increasingly polarized. Freedom of speech and expression only exist if the dissenting opinion is valued as equal to the majority opinion. People are afraid of the complexity of provoking ideas, and people are afraid to be the ones with the provoking ideas. Fear causes the dissenting opinion to be labeled as offensive or insensitive. Fear causes us to engage in self-censorship, and self censorship will inadvertently lead to the undoing of democracy.