3 ms·

How do you propose to solve this without limiting others freedom of speech? You have the right to say whatever you want but I don’t have the right to respond? S

by yibg 4y ago

How do you propose to solve this without limiting others freedom of speech? You have the right to say whatever you want but I don’t have the right to respond? Seems like just another version of rights for me but not for thee.

twblalock 4y ago
Obviously you can respond with other speech. Getting someone fired, cancelling their appearances at universities and other public events, blacklisting them from academia -- those things are not speech.
- 1270018080 4y ago
  > Getting someone fired, cancelling their appearances at universities and other public events, blacklisting them from academia None of these are restricting someone's freedom of speech. It's the same badly constructed talking point over and over again.
  - twblalock 4y ago
    Of course those things restrict speech for that person -- and they cause a chilling effect for anyone else who might want to say the same things. You might as well also say that jailing people for their speech doesn't infringe on freedom of speech, because that is a consequence of speech they already made. But that's a very narrow (and ahistorical) view of what freedom of speech really means. We can lean on the Wikipedia definition here: "Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction."
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  What about boycotting businesses that employ them? Is that speech? It's the employer who terminates employment, not the people asking the employer to do so. The opponents of the people asking the employer to terminate employment can exercise their free speech to argue for continued employment. That is the only action congruent with free speech absolutism. In this case, it also happens to match what the law protects.
- yibg 4y ago
  Doesn’t seem a good idea to limit responses to speech. Speech drives action often times and it should. Someone may protest because of something said, they may not want to associate with a person etc. I’m not sure I see a huge difference between me not wanting to hire you because you are a jerk (based on my interactions) vs not wanting to hire you because I think you are a bigot based on your podcast.
mlindner 4y ago
We could start by shunning people who shun people. If they’re fine with doing it they should be fine with receiving it.
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  The sarcasm in your comment is so subtle that it seems even you didn't get it.

by yibg 4y ago

twblalock 4y ago

Obviously you can respond with other speech. Getting someone fired, cancelling their appearances at universities and other public events, blacklisting them from academia -- those things are not speech.

1270018080 4y ago
> Getting someone fired, cancelling their appearances at universities and other public events, blacklisting them from academia None of these are restricting someone's freedom of speech. It's the same badly constructed talking point over and over again.
- twblalock 4y ago
  Of course those things restrict speech for that person -- and they cause a chilling effect for anyone else who might want to say the same things. You might as well also say that jailing people for their speech doesn't infringe on freedom of speech, because that is a consequence of speech they already made. But that's a very narrow (and ahistorical) view of what freedom of speech really means. We can lean on the Wikipedia definition here: "Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction."
lern_too_spel 4y ago
What about boycotting businesses that employ them? Is that speech? It's the employer who terminates employment, not the people asking the employer to do so. The opponents of the people asking the employer to terminate employment can exercise their free speech to argue for continued employment. That is the only action congruent with free speech absolutism. In this case, it also happens to match what the law protects.
yibg 4y ago
Doesn’t seem a good idea to limit responses to speech. Speech drives action often times and it should. Someone may protest because of something said, they may not want to associate with a person etc. I’m not sure I see a huge difference between me not wanting to hire you because you are a jerk (based on my interactions) vs not wanting to hire you because I think you are a bigot based on your podcast.

mlindner 4y ago

We could start by shunning people who shun people. If they’re fine with doing it they should be fine with receiving it.

lern_too_spel 4y ago
The sarcasm in your comment is so subtle that it seems even you didn't get it.