The concept outside the context of legal sanctions is an odd one though. It's much like the anti-cancel culture argument. It seems some want freedom of speech with absolutely no chance of any consequence whatsoever. I think there's a reason why the more broad sense of freedom of speech has never been codified.
The broader concept of "free speech" is not a legal one, and so is a lot "mushier" and more nuanced. "There should be no negative consequences of any kind for anything anyone ever says" is obviously way too strong. I think "free speech" is more like: "there's value in hearing ideas that are new, different, or that we actively disagree with, and we shouldn't discourage people from expressing ideas like that".
If you want a free society then that's the only way. If published in today's age, Samuel L. Clemens would have been cancelled by mercurial cry bullies.
I disagree. My ability to apply consequences is a necessary part of freedom. The consequences on their own shouldn't be illegal (e.g., murder), but applying those actions shouldn't in themselves be illegal when applied as a consequence of speech.
For example, if I'm in line at McDonalds and the cashier tells me that I'm ugly and he hates my family, I should be able to say, "I've changed my mind, I'm not going to eat here". But not being able to apply consequence to speech prohibits me from doing even this simple act.
> But not being able to apply consequence to speech prohibits me from doing even this simple act.
Going a bit further: not being able to apply consequences to speech is itself curtailing your speech, so you literally can't have one without the other!
> (...) not being able to apply consequences to speech is itself curtailing your speech,(...)
No, not really.
Your right to speech isn't infringed if someone does not share your personal opinion. You're always able to express your mind about how profoundly you disagree or how wrong you feel everyone around you is.
What you cannot do is go around strong-arming people to shut up or stop expressing ideas you don't share. That is not a way to protect your right to free speech. That's just fascism 101.
No one is suggesting anyone get strong-armed. Unless doing things like writing letters or boycotting is strong-arming. Physical violence, or threats, or denial of service, etc... are all out-of-bounds. But saying that me and my group of colleagues is no longer frequenting your establishment because you said you support our extermination is fair play, IMO.
"Showing someone the door" is just indicating that you would like them to leave. How much authority do you need to do this? If you believe the person being shown the door should have the right to say whatever they want, do you believe the other participants in the conversation don't have the right to say they would like to stop hearing from him?
> Showing someone the door" is just indicating that you would like them to leave. How much authority do you need to do this?
Not really.
I have no right to show you the door at the local library or cinema or car wash or local cafe, or at your own home. At most, that lies in the right to property,which only applies to things I personally own. Consequently, in a free and open society "showing someone the door" is a right that's only at the reach of private property owners or people mandated by said owners to manage some aspect of it.
Even then, that right to "show someone the door" because you don't like their opinions is not all powerful and is limited in some jurisdictions which also recognize the right to equality and non-discrimination. Think about it for a second: how can you have a free and open society if you do not have tolerance?
This argument comes up over and over in this debate, and it seems like the result of some misunderstanding. You’re certainly allowed to react in a way that’s punitive as long as it’s a legal action, you won’t be violating the law, and I don’t think anyone claims otherwise, but you’ll be violating the cultural norms of free speech by engaging in repression. If you generally believe in the freedom of speech as a principle, you believe that people who you disagree with should be able to say their piece, without your feeling the need to retaliate, because you know that that’s what’s necessary to maintain a culture of free speech and open, honest discourse. But when you try to punish or retaliate for someone airing a view you disagree with, you’re going past civil discourse into actions intended to harm them financially, emotionally, or otherwise. And that’s frankly harmful to democracy.
If they say they hate your family directly to you, sure, don’t eat there. But most speech that people disagree with and try to retaliate against the speaker isn’t on that level - it’s bits of speech taken out of context, indirect expressions of opinion like donations to candidates, etc. People are being manipulated by professional propagandists, and they’re following along enthusiastically. It’s polarizing the country, and it’s actively harmful to the stability of the democracy.
I don't understand this argument though. For example, "People are being manipulated by professional propagandists, and they’re following along enthusiastically."
Are you saying that pro propagandists don't have the right to their speech? Is the ability to persuade the problem? It seems like half of the reason why we speak is to persuade.
We both stated in our posts that the reactions must be legal on their own. So lets take illegal actions out of the picture. But if it is legal for me to start a boycott about your product, I think it is problematic to say it is now illegal to do so as a reaction to something you said. If boycotting is so problematic, just make it illegal all up.
The problem with our country isn't the speech. Its the fact that people are easily manipulated with bad data. But I don't see how prohibiting legal actions resulting from free speech is going to be helpful. All you've done is infringed on another "freedom". We should instead just be actively working on better educating people. Critical thinking and logic skills should be fundamental in our education system.
I don't think anyone is proposing making it illegal to boycott, it's just counter to a culture of free speech to try to punish people because you disagree with their opinions. That culture isn't legally protected, except the part where the government can't infringe on it.
If companies do something I don't like I'm not gonna buy their shit. I am not violating free speech by choosing not to buy their shit. There is no right for a business to have my dollars.
And... that's really what it comes down to. Billionaires wanting to keep their profits.
As far as going after a person personally, I don't agree with that, but that's usually not how this plays out. Some idiot says something stupid, then advertisers stop advertising, because they know people like me actually give a shit about this stuff and I can make do without random piece of shit #726 cluttering my house.
This isn't actually sufficient to uphold free speech. Rather, you need to fund your opponents -- buy them a new house, give them your car, retell their opinion to everyone you know, saying that you agree with it and that they should too, so that it can be seen in the most favourable light and have the most possible reach, and that they can put their full effort into it without having to prioritize their views against eating or housing etc.
Just not adding punishments to one side while granting money, privilege, and respect to another is the current state of propaganda for folks like Bill Gates.
If you make something that agrees, you'll be showered in funding, attention, and branding, but if you make something that disagrees, you're on your own. It's a retaliation for disagreeing
Just like Joe Rogan (most popular podcast in the world, btw), Tucker Carlson, Rush Limbaugh, John Stewart were all cancelled, as opposed to being wildly popular, but divisive media creators..?
Obvious example is that Jews don't have to stay at the party where someone is yelling nazi slogans. And their friends can leave too. Neither have to wait till first physical attack starts.
I intentionally picked obvious example instead of anything nuanced.
