Public utterances are actions which can have consequences. If you're in favor of free speech, buckle up because criticism of public figures is protected speech.
But in this case the "consequence" to esr was somebody apologizing for linking to him. Methinks the parent protests too much
Every action has consequences, it's either profound or meaningless to point this out. I see it used as a reason to limit speech because this speech that I disagree with is insidious and sinister. Rarely is any direct link provided between this sinister speech and any action that couldn't be better described as being entirely the responsibility of the actor.
Indeed, I point out that actions have consequences because it's a common trope that "free speech" implies a lack of consequence.
> I see it used as a reason to limit speech because this speech that I disagree with is insidious and sinister.
Limiting speech is a very nuanced issue, and there's a lot of common misconceptions surrounding it. For a counterexample, if you're wont to racist diatribes, that can make many folks in your presence uncomfortable; if you do it at work or you do it publicly enough that your coworkers find out about it, that can create a toxic work environment and you might quickly find yourself unemployed. In this case, your right to espouse those viewpoints has not been infringed -- you can still say that stuff, but nobody is obliged to provide audience.
And as a person's publicity increases, so do the ramifications for bad behavior -- as it should. Should esr be banned from the internet by court order? Probably not. Does any and every privately owned platform have the right to ban him or/and anybody who dis/agrees with him? Absolutely: nobody's right to free speech has been infringed by federal or state governments. And that's the only "free speech" right we have.
The reason free speech is called free is that it is supposed to be free of suppression and negative consequence where that speech does not infringe on the interests of others. That it is only now protected in scope by interference from government does not make this version of the free speech the one that supporters of it (myself included) the ideal.
> Should esr be banned from the internet by court order? Probably not.
Where's the uncertainty in this?
> Does any and every privately owned platform have the right to ban him or/and anybody who dis/agrees with him?
Those that profess to being a platform and not a publisher should not be able to ban him, nor anybody else, for their views, whether expounded via their platform. That's why they get legal protections not afforded to others. Do you think the phone company should be able to cut you off for conversations you have on their system?
> I just explicitly affirmed at least two of four "racist, misogynistic, bigoted" statements of fact.
Well, that's how you're characterizing your actions, okay. But just so you know. Your employer is free to retain you, or fire you, on the basis of opinions that you express in public or private. Wicked tyranny, that freedom of association.
> Presumably now you'd like to...
Well, that's certainly a chain of assumptions you've made. Why would you, say, "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize" when you're out in public? Oh right, that's a quote from HN guidelines. In any case, you're not changing minds by acting this way.
> because this is how you tyrants prefer we genuflect to avoid guilt by association.
Oh, no, the tyranny of public criticism! Hey did you know something? You're free to disagree with me. And criticize me. In public! And others are free to agree with me, or you, or even both of us, even if that makes zero sense!
> This is profoundly idiotic, but I again refrain from arguing because my audience has proven itself very unthinking and vicious
A personal attack, how droll.
> I hope you're not an American,
I am! And as an American I've got the freedom of association -- that means that I'm not legally obligated to verbally support or denounce anybody; nor is it unlawful for me to verbally support or denounce anybody! Funny thing about freedoms; we've all got 'em and it doesn't mean we need to agree on a damned thing.
> because you don't understand what "free speech" is or why we have it,
Well you're wrong there, but IANAL so here's first amendment attorney, Ken White.
>> Public utterances are actions which can have consequences
But in this case the "consequence" to esr was somebody apologizing for linking to him. Methinks the parent protests too much