Free speech is generally accepted to be in the service of “political dialogue”. In so far as Stallman was discussing the law, he was genuinely engaging in poli

Free speech is generally accepted to be in the service of “political dialogue”. In so far as Stallman was discussing the law, he was genuinely engaging in political dialogue; in so far as he was speculating about Minsky or the situation in question he was not. To say that we can exercise speech but must face the “consequences” is just begging the question — what “consequences” are compatible with a free society? If my boss says it would be a great thing if California secedes from the Union, and I say I doubt that would go well, we rely so much on other states for water, &c, &c ... I may definitely offend him. How acceptable is it that a person be fired in that situation?