5 ms·

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This is understood as the principle of freedom of speech. We don't get th

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This is understood as the principle of freedom of speech. We don't get that if you risk losing your job if you don't share every view of the majority. The principle should be well understood by an organization that stands for, above all, these sorts of freedoms. There is no freedom of speech left if you're only able to say what everyone agrees with. When did we lose sight of this? This posturing is shameful.

mthoms 7y ago
His freedom of speech hasn't been hindered in any way, shape, or form (as far as I can tell). What I do see, is others utilizing their right to (dis)associate with whomever they want. Freedom of speech has never included any notion of "Freedom from societal repercussions".
- humanrebar 7y ago
  "Freedom of speech" is a universal principle that is also crystallized in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution with respect to government suppression of private speech. It's also important that the principle be applied in private interactions, weighing other considerations. Of course, a political diatribe at a funeral is a poor choice. But there need to be places for well intentioned and civil people to come together and discuss things, even if ignorance is spouted of from time to time. If we're all humble, we'll all understand we're each ignorant in our own way and have a little grace to let each other be wrong, annoying, and even circumstantially negative from time to time. Yes, freedom of association is important and conflicts with freedom of speech sometimes. But deciding to shun people also has repercussions. We have to consider all the repercussions of all of our actions.
  - mthoms 7y ago
    Well said. I agree completely. The question I would ask next though, is whether RMS is well intentioned, humble and aware of his own capability to be ignorant? I don't have a strong opinion, but there does appear to be a long history of behaviours and musings which suggest he isn't. I'm not saying he deserves to be a social pariah. But it seems reasonable for the FSF to want to disassociate with him.

mthoms 7y ago

His freedom of speech hasn't been hindered in any way, shape, or form (as far as I can tell). What I do see, is others utilizing their right to (dis)associate with whomever they want. Freedom of speech has never included any notion of "Freedom from societal repercussions".

humanrebar 7y ago
"Freedom of speech" is a universal principle that is also crystallized in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution with respect to government suppression of private speech. It's also important that the principle be applied in private interactions, weighing other considerations. Of course, a political diatribe at a funeral is a poor choice. But there need to be places for well intentioned and civil people to come together and discuss things, even if ignorance is spouted of from time to time. If we're all humble, we'll all understand we're each ignorant in our own way and have a little grace to let each other be wrong, annoying, and even circumstantially negative from time to time. Yes, freedom of association is important and conflicts with freedom of speech sometimes. But deciding to shun people also has repercussions. We have to consider all the repercussions of all of our actions.
- mthoms 7y ago
  Well said. I agree completely. The question I would ask next though, is whether RMS is well intentioned, humble and aware of his own capability to be ignorant? I don't have a strong opinion, but there does appear to be a long history of behaviours and musings which suggest he isn't. I'm not saying he deserves to be a social pariah. But it seems reasonable for the FSF to want to disassociate with him.