I mostly agree with this: am pretty much a Free Speech absolutist.
However, I can't help but suspect that the reason we're hearing arguments about this now is because the liberal-Left are aggressively exercising their intolerance instead of the conservative-Right, who have had it all their way for a long time.
Aside: I don't think lumping liberals and leftists in together is useful. There is a strong dislike of the trend towards censorship voiced by those that are economically on the left. The embrace of censorship is coming from the corporate/capitalist/liberal side of things. Most on the left are well aware that censorship will be used against them first.
Punished by the state specifically. I don't see how you could enforce speech _not_ having social consequences, nor what the purpose of such speech would be if that were possible.
I take your point, and I am slightly on the fence about this and trying to figure it out. I found this¹ a very useful criticism of the Taibbi line-of-though(that I am also very persuaded by)
I will admit:
a) individuals and groups should be able to withdraw their co-operation, money and labor from other individuals or groups with whom they disagree.
b) the examples which have happened in the recent flare-up fall squarely into a)
However, where things get complicated is the definition of the state and how practical control is exercised over what can and cannot be said. The state is more than just the government, it is also traditionally the press, the army, the judiciary and the clergy.
We are an 'interesting' situation now where the function of the press is to a large extent assumed by Facebook, Google and (indirectly) CloudFlare and the ISPs. Concretely they can prevent the spreading of information, the publication of ideas for reasons that they deem justified.
The power to suppress and censor ideas has been exercized against what some would characterize as 'right wing' causes such as the publication of anti-semitic 'hate speech'. It has also be exercized against 'left wing' causes such as the publication of footage and reporting showing the massacres of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army.
The only unique, useful thing about the internet is the possibility that it offers in allowing us to circumvent the censors. With that we get access to the Wikileaks material, the details of financial crimes carried out by our politicians and business people. We also get mis-information and pornography.
The calls to boycott Facebook come from disparate places: government functionaries and political parties who wish to discipline the internet and control the narrative (no more upsetting the funding model, no more embarassing leaks showing our boys murdering civilians); activists who wish to protest specific social issues.
In order for their wishes to become concrete there needs to be mechanism/s put in place by Facebook, Google, CloudFlare that enable them to suppress information: for good or bad reasons.
The people who will be in control of these mechanisms are the people who got us here.
The next round of popular protests won't happen because we will not have seen the video of a human being shot in their car or having their neck crushed.
Tools of centralized power are used by those in power. That's not likely to be you and me.
However, I can't help but suspect that the reason we're hearing arguments about this now is because the liberal-Left are aggressively exercising their intolerance instead of the conservative-Right, who have had it all their way for a long time.
Aside: I don't think lumping liberals and leftists in together is useful. There is a strong dislike of the trend towards censorship voiced by those that are economically on the left. The embrace of censorship is coming from the corporate/capitalist/liberal side of things. Most on the left are well aware that censorship will be used against them first.