3 ms·

Free speech doesn't mean that you are protected from the consequences of your speech. It means that the government cannot prosecute you for making speech that's

Free speech doesn't mean that you are protected from the consequences of your speech. It means that the government cannot prosecute you for making speech that's inflammatory towards politicians or the state. It's not their job to protect you when you say something that others interpret as signs that they shouldn't keep you around. Google was protecting itself by firing damore as his opinions are sign saying women aren't welcome at Google. As we have learned over years of history, workplace diversity and safety is important for a healthy work environment. It's rather unfortunate that this is up for debate and I hope that those that do not understand why it shouldn't be up for debate should really try to read and understand the difficulties that women have in tech. However, most likely the same people that don't understand why it's a problem also lack critical empathy skills which means their understanding is quite limited. If only there was documentation for empathy! Then we could stop having this conversation and instead link out to it.

quotemstr 9y ago
The problem with the "free speech is not consequence-free speech" meme is that, in principle, we're "free" to perform any action whatsoever. I mean, we're free to rob banks too. Sure, there are some pretty severe consequences for it, but nobody stops my going to a bank and passing a note that demands all the cash in the vault. We say we're not free to rob banks because the consequences of bank robbery are strong enough to deter the act. Now let's look at speech. When speaking out means being targeted by hate mobs, losing your job, and having to pull your kids out of school to start a new life elsewhere, in what sense are you free to speak? In today's climate, the consequences of speech are severe enough to deter the act. It doesn't matter whether these consequences technically originate from the government or from powerful mega-corporations. We have a no societal interest in bank robbery. We do have a strong societal interest in the free exchange of ideas, since free and vigorous debate is the only way known to separate good policies from ones ones that don't work. Free expression is the only way to truly understand what we profess to understand. A minority of our society disagrees about speech. They see speech as a threat to be contained. They think uncomfortable ideas are just as injurious as physical violence and are willing to take extreme measures in what they see as self-defense. History is not kind to such people in the long run, but here we are. We should not allow this minority to create consequences for speech that are strong enough to shut down the engine of intellectual curiosity that's given us civilization.

quotemstr 9y ago

The problem with the "free speech is not consequence-free speech" meme is that, in principle, we're "free" to perform any action whatsoever. I mean, we're free to rob banks too. Sure, there are some pretty severe consequences for it, but nobody stops my going to a bank and passing a note that demands all the cash in the vault. We say we're not free to rob banks because the consequences of bank robbery are strong enough to deter the act. Now let's look at speech. When speaking out means being targeted by hate mobs, losing your job, and having to pull your kids out of school to start a new life elsewhere, in what sense are you free to speak? In today's climate, the consequences of speech are severe enough to deter the act. It doesn't matter whether these consequences technically originate from the government or from powerful mega-corporations. We have a no societal interest in bank robbery. We do have a strong societal interest in the free exchange of ideas, since free and vigorous debate is the only way known to separate good policies from ones ones that don't work. Free expression is the only way to truly understand what we profess to understand. A minority of our society disagrees about speech. They see speech as a threat to be contained. They think uncomfortable ideas are just as injurious as physical violence and are willing to take extreme measures in what they see as self-defense. History is not kind to such people in the long run, but here we are. We should not allow this minority to create consequences for speech that are strong enough to shut down the engine of intellectual curiosity that's given us civilization.