3 ms·
>It doesn't matter if that's because they're afraid of being jailed (government pressure) or they're afraid of losing jobs, scholarships, career advancement, or
by SolaceQuantum 10y ago
>It doesn't matter if that's because they're afraid of being jailed (government pressure) or they're afraid of losing jobs, scholarships, career advancement, or other personal issues (as was in former socialists states in EU).
That seems like the kind of free speech that limits other people's free speech ability to say something along the lines of "nazi punks fuck off" and actively respond to things they disagree with.
To say that no one has "free speech" if there are any consequences to saying stuff seems to me as taking it much too far.
- izacus 10y agoI'm not trying to say any such thing. But what I am saying is that there is absolutely no difference if a news reporter is arrested by the government or if that same news reporter is fired and can't find a job again. Free discussion of problems in society was blocked in both cases. In real history the second form of government supression was significantly more common than the first and was supported by the same kind of argument the original poster was making. IMO the difference is in the magnitude of consequences - if I criticize EU policy and as a consequence I'm not welcome in a smaller discussion group due to it is one thing. If I and everyone else criticizes that same policy and we all lose our jobs and houses because of that, it's a whole different type of problem.
- SolaceQuantum 10y agoOpinions are not a protected demographic like gender or age. Making opinions a protected demographic will prevent your ability to fire someone because they're an asshole.