Yeah, that's what I expected, a proposal to silence the speech of some people to protect others. Maybe you haven't thought enough about free speech, not me?
I think Ken White covered this dichotomy best, in this case a few years ago over a guy name Pax who got fired for his intemperate speech. See below.
> The foundation of "witch hunt" rhetoric is the notion that some free speech (say, Pax's) is acceptable, and other free speech (say, the speech of people criticizing and ridiculing Pax and his employer) is not. You can try to find a coherent or principled way to reconcile that, but you will fail.
I simply think there is a difference between criticism (saying you disagree or even cursing someone) and punishment (withdrawing funding, getting somebody fired).
And I also think that the whole point of free speech is to be free of societal consequences of it, whether they have government authority stamp or not, because it's IMHO impossible to discern that either (and I think the former Soviet regimes, which started in good faith of inclusive community, and ended up authoritarian, show exactly that problem).
> I simply think there is a difference between criticism (saying you disagree or even cursing someone) and punishment (withdrawing funding, getting somebody fired).
What an extremely weird take. Are you saying I don’t have the right to decide who to do business with based on what they say, or that that’s somehow inappropriate? Restraining the right of free association to protect free speech is an awful idea.
> And I also think that the whole point of free speech is to be free of societal consequences of it
You are wrong. Full stop.
Free speech is about the right to say what you want without the government punishing you for it. This also includes the freedom to express disapproval or opprobrium. The ability to express disapproval is fundamental to free speech, any attempt to curtail that is in fact an attempt to curtail free speech itself.
If you wish to speak without social consequences, speak anonymously. This is the exact reason why the Supreme Court has held that anonymous speech is a right, to speak controversial ideas without suffering social consequences.
Also, you’re criticizing me for considering not buying a future DLC. Under your own theory, aren’t you being anti free speech for criticizing me?
> whether they have government authority stamp or not,
If you can’t tell the difference between government action and individual people expressing an opinion, that seems like a problem specific to you and not this society.
> and I think the former Soviet regimes, which started in good faith of inclusive community, and ended up authoritarian, show exactly that problem
Ironic, given that you’re proposing authoritarian responses to protect free speech.
I think Ken White covered this dichotomy best, in this case a few years ago over a guy name Pax who got fired for his intemperate speech. See below.
> The foundation of "witch hunt" rhetoric is the notion that some free speech (say, Pax's) is acceptable, and other free speech (say, the speech of people criticizing and ridiculing Pax and his employer) is not. You can try to find a coherent or principled way to reconcile that, but you will fail.
https://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/