4 ms·

Isn't this just "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences"? No one is restricting their ability to speak, they are just restricting their ability to w

Isn't this just "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences"? No one is restricting their ability to speak, they are just restricting their ability to work at SpaceX. What's the alternative? Does a free speech absolutist need to never make judgements on what he hears from someone's free speech? If I hear a person say he wants to murder me and my family, do I still need to invite him over for Thanksgiving dinner? Aren't I exerting some form of control of over him if I say you can't come into my home? I think your view of the term "free speech absolutist" may make sense when analyzing the individual word meanings, but doesn't make sense as a phrase, and doesn't align with how self described free speech absolutists view themselves.

jakelazaroff 4y ago
The point is that there’s no fundamental difference between “you are free to say what you want, but you might get fired from SpaceX” and “you are free to say what you want, but you might get banned from Twitter”. But people — including Elon! — act as if the former is normal and rational, while the latter is some sort of affront to a free society.
- googlryas 4y ago
  Most people would disagree that there's no fundamental difference between an employee-employer relationship and a user-service provider relationship.
  - jakelazaroff 4y ago
    Abstractly, in the sense that "freedom from speech is not freedom from consequences", I don't think they're fundamentally different. If you're a free speech absolutist, then the nature of the relationship shouldn't matter. They're both just private organizations making choices about how they voluntarily associate with others. Most people aren't free speech absolutists, though, and I agree that they'd think there's a fundamental difference between employer-employee relationships and user-provider relationships as a whole. But it should be significantly harder for an employer to fire an employee than for a service provider to ban a user.
- samhyde69 4y ago
joenathanone 4y ago
Everyone already has what you are describing by default, anyone anywhere can say anything at all, the issue is whatever consequences come from that, be it jail time like in Russia for speaking about the war, or losing your job at SpaceX. Being a free speech absolutist is meaningless if you are going to fire people the moment they say something you don't like.
- googlryas 4y ago
  I don't think anyone would claim that a place where you have free speech, but you might just get murdered by your government for your free speech, is a place where free speech exists
  - joenathanone 4y ago
    Free speech implies a certain amount of freedom from consequences of that speech. If you are a free speech absolutist, it would mean believing in no consequences.
    - googlryas 4y ago
      > Free speech implies a certain amount of freedom from consequences of that speech. Yes. Like not getting banned from the public square for giving your speech, or not getting arrested by the government for your free speech. No one has ever argued that truly free speech means no one can judge you on what you are saying. > If you are a free speech absolutist, it would mean believing in no consequences. It would mean either that, or that you are using the phrase in a different manner than other people who use the phrase. I find this whole exercise silly. I view it as 1) I don't like someone 2) Someone says he is X 3) To me, X means Y 4) Someone is not a Y 5) Therefore, someone is a hypocrite and (1) is justified.
      - joenathanone 4y ago
        >It would mean either that, or that you are using the phrase in a different manner than other people who use the phrase. Words have meaning, if they didn't then there would be no such thing as hypocrisy because everyone could just have their own little definition for a term or title they want to adopt but not be burdened to live by. To Elon rules apply to thee and not me, these firings are text book hypocrisy.
arghnoname 4y ago
Not disagreeing with you, but elaborating on this 'you can say what you want, but you have to live with the consequences' idea. It's a situation of monopoly. If consequences to speech prohibit one from an entire category of human need (one's life, ability to earn a living, ability to find housing, etc), then those consequences are in fact limiting speech. A 'cancellation' that makes someone unemployable is much more a prohibition on speech than being fired from a single job without affecting one's general ability to get hired. If Musk were to now work to get the signatories of the letter blacklisted from broader employment this becomes an issue. The problem is that platforms on the internet benefit from network effects and become quasi-monopolistic. If there were platforms with similar reach as Twitter that allowed the speech that Twitter does not allow, whether or not Twitter censors would be kind of a moot point.

jakelazaroff 4y ago

The point is that there’s no fundamental difference between “you are free to say what you want, but you might get fired from SpaceX” and “you are free to say what you want, but you might get banned from Twitter”. But people — including Elon! — act as if the former is normal and rational, while the latter is some sort of affront to a free society.

googlryas 4y ago
Most people would disagree that there's no fundamental difference between an employee-employer relationship and a user-service provider relationship.
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  Abstractly, in the sense that "freedom from speech is not freedom from consequences", I don't think they're fundamentally different. If you're a free speech absolutist, then the nature of the relationship shouldn't matter. They're both just private organizations making choices about how they voluntarily associate with others. Most people aren't free speech absolutists, though, and I agree that they'd think there's a fundamental difference between employer-employee relationships and user-provider relationships as a whole. But it should be significantly harder for an employer to fire an employee than for a service provider to ban a user.
samhyde69 4y ago

joenathanone 4y ago

Everyone already has what you are describing by default, anyone anywhere can say anything at all, the issue is whatever consequences come from that, be it jail time like in Russia for speaking about the war, or losing your job at SpaceX. Being a free speech absolutist is meaningless if you are going to fire people the moment they say something you don't like.

googlryas 4y ago
I don't think anyone would claim that a place where you have free speech, but you might just get murdered by your government for your free speech, is a place where free speech exists
- joenathanone 4y ago
  Free speech implies a certain amount of freedom from consequences of that speech. If you are a free speech absolutist, it would mean believing in no consequences.
  - googlryas 4y ago
    > Free speech implies a certain amount of freedom from consequences of that speech. Yes. Like not getting banned from the public square for giving your speech, or not getting arrested by the government for your free speech. No one has ever argued that truly free speech means no one can judge you on what you are saying. > If you are a free speech absolutist, it would mean believing in no consequences. It would mean either that, or that you are using the phrase in a different manner than other people who use the phrase. I find this whole exercise silly. I view it as 1) I don't like someone 2) Someone says he is X 3) To me, X means Y 4) Someone is not a Y 5) Therefore, someone is a hypocrite and (1) is justified.
    - joenathanone 4y ago
      >It would mean either that, or that you are using the phrase in a different manner than other people who use the phrase. Words have meaning, if they didn't then there would be no such thing as hypocrisy because everyone could just have their own little definition for a term or title they want to adopt but not be burdened to live by. To Elon rules apply to thee and not me, these firings are text book hypocrisy.

arghnoname 4y ago

Not disagreeing with you, but elaborating on this 'you can say what you want, but you have to live with the consequences' idea. It's a situation of monopoly. If consequences to speech prohibit one from an entire category of human need (one's life, ability to earn a living, ability to find housing, etc), then those consequences are in fact limiting speech. A 'cancellation' that makes someone unemployable is much more a prohibition on speech than being fired from a single job without affecting one's general ability to get hired. If Musk were to now work to get the signatories of the letter blacklisted from broader employment this becomes an issue. The problem is that platforms on the internet benefit from network effects and become quasi-monopolistic. If there were platforms with similar reach as Twitter that allowed the speech that Twitter does not allow, whether or not Twitter censors would be kind of a moot point.