I'm going to be honest, that seems somewhat naive and poorly thought out. Take both the rule of law and certain laws we have regarding employee rights. In many places, you can't fire someone because you don't like homosexuals and in other places you can't fire people because they have cancer. Both of these are in fact a restriction of freedom to ensure social justice, there by completely contradicting "social justice can only follow freedom". When in our society it is actually the restriction of freedom that allows social justice its place in society (at least in my example) -- and rightly so in my opinion.

I would suggest not using one-off examples that you gave if you're wanting to paint a broader picture, or use it as a basis for a set of foundational principles.

But regardless, I would like an example of what "SJW's" words and statements are being used as thought-terminating cliches in true Orwellian fashion. I'd also like to know why you consider using such terms as "SJW" to be exempt from that (presumably). If "SJW" is politics of language, and you say it arguably is, then why did you employ such terminology in a post about not employing such rhetoric?

I agree that some laws promote justice at the expense of freedom, and have no problem with it in many circumstances. I am by no means the first to point out that there is a "regressive left" trend nowadays. Leftists can be authoritarian too, as was Stalin.

I gave you an example of SJW's who regard the "patriarchy" as a threat more significant than the free speech of the men who were trying to have a meeting. In other words, they valued "social justice" more than freedom. I feel you ought to address this before asking for another example.