- Noam Chomsky
And again, he was fired because he basically said that half of his coworkers do not deserve to be there. So those coworkers then used their free speech to say they no longer wish to work with him, and they would leave the company. Google decided that the contributions of those other people were worth more than the contributions of Damore, exercised their freedom of speech, and chose no longer to associate with him. At no point whatsoever was Damore silenced or censored. He simply had to live with the consequences of his actions.
The argument is that it's better for society when those who disagree engage in dialogue instead of retaliation. So in that sense, yes, free speech is about being able to say what's on your mind without consequences.
We're not just talking about rights here, we're talking about principles. You do indeed have the right to walk away, or deny someone access to your platform, if you disagree with them.
But it's not the principled thing to do. It leads to radicalization, the collapse of consensus, and the death of the middle ground. These are the defining features of American politics today, increasingly volatile and partisan, because for so long so many people have faced consequences just for saying what's on their mind.
Free speech is fundamentally about recognizing that you disagree with someone, but at the end of the day, they're still human, they're still a fellow citizen with hopes and dreams just like you, and we can all be stronger if we find common ground and work together.
Here is Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which is an aspirational statement, not a legally binding treaty. Nevertheless it is considered one of the most important documents of the 20th century.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
No. From now on, it is the Damores of the world that have to reach out. They have to prove that they are the ones trying, instead of using junk science to claim that half their coworkers don't belong there.
You want to talk about principles? Then start by reaching out to those you put so much burden on.
Ah, I'm delighted to see that I'm getting somewhere. Yes, I am indeed arguing for free speech that's also free from consequences; one of the core values of classical liberalism that sprang from the Enlightenment. Freedom of speech doesn't mean much if actually exercising it invites repression and it does not matter in the slightest whether that repression comes from a government or from an outraged public.
An analogy with Jeanette Rankin comes to mind, though not precisely a speech issue; she was the sole member of the US Congress to vote against entry into WWII after the Pearl Harbor attack because of her staunch pacifist convications. After the vote she was forced to take shelter inside a phone booth until police could escort her home. According to modern liberals, she should have faced the "consequences" (your word, not mine), no matter how horrific, since they weren't coming from the government.
Note that I don't even agree with her action but, as the old quote goes "I (may) disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
I don't often see someone actually owning up to this view - good for you.
I'm not sure how it's possible to enforce speech that is free from consequences. Do you have a specific definition of "consequence" that you'd like to elaborate on? Anything could be a consequence (like, just hearing the speech in the first place). What is it specifically that you're trying to protect against?
Not sure if you meant it this way but "owning up" sounds like it's something to be ashamed of. I'm quite proud of being a classical liberal and supporting free speech even if it does unfortunately mean that some not very nice people also get to their say their piece.
> Do you have a specific definition of "consequence" that you'd like to elaborate on? Anything could be a consequence (like, just hearing the speech in the first place).
The parent poster is the one that introduced the word "consequences" into the discussion (as I was careful to note in my response) so I refer your question to him/her. Judging by the approval with which s/he speaks of Danmore's firing, it seems rather improbable that it's benign to the recipient though.
Which boils down to you arguing that no one else should have free speech.
"According to modern liberals, she should have faced the "consequences" (your word, not mine), no matter how horrific, since they weren't coming from the government."
When you imply that I am advocating violence like that, then you have proven that you are not discussing in good faith. You are not trying to have a discussion, you are just trying to be "right".
If you are saying that I am advocating violence as a "consequence", then you are not discussing in good faith.
Individuals and businesses already have restrictions on their freedom of association already, the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Fair Housing Act of 1968 that require businesses and landlords / property sellers to serve people in protected classes being prime examples.
So, yes, you could say that I am just as much in favor of restricting the freedom of association for businesses and landlords to preserve equality for protected classes as I am interested in restricting the freedom of association for common telecoms carriers and social media businesses to preserve freedom of speech.
> Which boils down to you arguing that no one else should have free speech.
> So you're admitting you're not in favor of freedom of speech.
All you've done in this conversation is attempt to put words in my mouth while at the same time saying I'm the one not speaking in good faith. I see no benefit to continuing this discussion.
I've presented my reasoning, analogies, and historical precedents to the best of my humble abilities. Let the readers decide.