> I don't want to live in a world without American freedom of speech - where we can't be blunt and speak our minds.
Freedom of speech isn't the freedom to not be publicly judged about what you say.
Freedom of speech isn't the freedom to not be publicly judged about what you say.
This is not just about being judged, it's about being judged and executed for your opinions. The judges and the juries have already handed out their verdict and will personally hand out the punishment, and if you dare question it you'll likely be next on the list. For example, I've seen that those who sided against RMS create a script to block those who signed the petition in his support. It's infuriating, it's a childish behavior that doesn't help anyone, it serves only to further polarize and radicalize the two sides, and further reduces the room for discussion. If there even was room left, that is. [1]
This is not an ecosystem where people are able to express their ideas. There is either black or white. You are either with us or against us. And if you express moderate opinions you risk angering both sides, and good luck with that.
You have to carefully weight every single word, because all it takes is for a single person to take issue with your comment enough to signal it to the cancel culture mob on Twitter to mobilize a horde of vocal complainers with plenty of spare time that will do everything they can to make you regret ever typing it out, either now or in the future. It's outright barbaric behavior from both sides that has been seen time and time again in the last years.
Do you honestly consider this "freedom of speech"?
---
[1] As another commenter points out, this kind of stuff comes from both sides. The given example was just fresh in my mind.
And people who support RMS want to have Molly Le Blanc arrested for starting the petition to remove him[0].
[0]https://debian.community/molly-de-blanc-arrest-and-prosecuti...
Thanks for making me notice.
None of the public judgements about RMS are about anything technical, anything about free software, or anything that touch on him running the FSF. He voiced an unfashionable opinion on sex and the laws about sex.
This is a political act to blacklist a man for his political opinions from work in a profession that he is qualified for.
No, freedom of speech is about not being censored for expressing your opinions. It is not a right to be facilitated in expressing your opinions, or freedom of consequences for your opinions.
It's counter to freedom of speech and it isn't acceptable.
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Can't you see that a position that requires public speaking requires someone who is good at public speaking? Someone who doesn't continually cause misunderstanding because they're so poor at communicating?
Thank you for putting it so clearly.
The problem is that I'm not sure we have much of a shared morality any more.
Software development forces us to be more precise about what our process is. Sales wants to automate their pipeline - oh but what do you mean I have to tell you who to call next? Just call the important ones. We can no longer 'fudge' things.
Agile methodology is causing this problem in many companies. Asking senior management to stack rank their projects is an intensly political issue. Saying the project timelines will vary based on team velocity takes away simplicity of project management.
As software eats the world then more of the world must be upfront and precise about what it means. This is going to lead to a lot of soul searching. The most obvious example is the Trolley problem in autonomous cars - do you program a car to swerve to avoid the child, killing the driver, or save the driver, kill the kid.
This sort of devils own choice will become more rampant as more of the world becomes automatable.
Online speech is just one of these. Now that every pub conversation can be spread to millions of listeners, we need to find ways to agree on what is and is not acceptable.
The problem people are finding is that what was tolerated by people in the 19th hole in Alabama is not acceptable by people listening in Delhi.
The human species is going to have to find ways to get along together. I think that will (eventually) be a good thing.
People all around the world have state sanctioned freedom of speech but are oppressed by the majority in their country.
This infantile view of freedom of speech is simply a way to pretend you care about freedom of speech while sanctioning other ways to silence/punish people. Even when that punishment is completely disproportionate too.
Freedom of speech means just that - you are free to say what you want/think.
Others don't have to agree with you. They might leave the room/not be your friend/unfollow you/fire you/stop buying your products.
If your opinion is against the majority in any situation, you're going to have a hard time - whether it's about something important, or just whether you think pineapple should go on a pizza.
So its not enough to have freedom of speech, one also needs freedom from persecution and the other rights listed below:
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
Yes.
I agree.
You know who else thinks this way? Many repressive countries such as those who control how women / minorities / etc behave in public. It's essentially mob pressure and destroys genuine freedom of speech.
You're basically expressing a threat that will be used against people who openly do not agree with the majority.