In my country, the idea of safe place were meeting where you could talk to other without fear of being judged or made fun of. Of course, it started with AA, but in the 2000 in my area a rape survivors group created a safe place, which expended to sexual aggression safe place.

I was quite surprised in the 2010s when 'safe place' started to be made fun of online and somehow considered censorship. I always thought it was useful tools to engage in free discussions about extremely sensitive topics.

I think the idea entered the popular discourse around public universities providing designated, debate-free spaces on a public campus which certainly seems like government censorship.

Tensions were exacerbated because those universities frequently tried to reserve those spaces specifically for students of certain identity categories (obvious discrimination), and they were also trying to create designated "free speech zones" on campus, suggesting free speech was not permitted elsewhere.

Safe spaces aren't really censorship. People are allowed to make fun of them. The hypocrisy comes into play when the ones who claim they're not allowed to speak their minds seem more like they really just want the entire world around them to be their safe space.

The safe spaces I’m familiar with were on American universities (specifically public universities) and typically prohibited debate or other forms of speech.

I see a lot of hypocrisy when it comes to people criticizing the idea of a private safe space while the critics themselves engage in their own private safe space (there’s a certain subreddit that loves to call others “snowflakes” while the subreddit itself aggressively and formally censors). I think hypocrisy with respect to public safety spaces (in which government censorship concerns are relevant) is rarer, but I’m sure it exists.