3 ms·
That misses an important point IMO. The idea of Freedom of Speech is what's important, and that idea is not "the literal first amendment and absolutely nothing
by ufmace 9y ago
That misses an important point IMO. The idea of Freedom of Speech is what's important, and that idea is not "the literal first amendment and absolutely nothing else". Arranging for harm to come to someone for expressing points of views you don't like is antithetical to the idea of Freedom of Speech. What we're supposed to be protecting is everyone expressing any views they hold, and for bad or wrong views to be dealt with in the marketplace of ideas, not by silencing the owners of those views.
You can perhaps say there are exceptions to views to be tolerated, but we're letting those exceptions become bigger and bigger. It's a dangerous trend, and if it continues, the idea of Freedom of Speech could be gone, even if the Government doesn't explicitly suppress it.
- albinofrenchy 9y agoHis job required him to participate in a team setting. His speech made that untenable according to his employer. He hasn't been silenced though, if anything his voice carried far further than intended. I'm not sure Google did the right thing here. The argument that this is the precise sacred cow he was talking about is strong. But it isn't censorship. His speech wasn't abridged. He isn't in jail. There is no freedom from reaction, nor is there a freedom from outrage. If he had sent out a racist tirade, dropping racial epithets, would you still say his right to free speech was infringed when he got fired?