You're right, because it's not about having a platform for speech, it's about escaping consequences for speech.
"There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech."
But I can't find an official source.
Consider this hypothetical situation. Imagine your favorite actor comes out with some really, really horrible political views, like women should be the chattel slaves of their male guardians. For a lot of people, even maybe you yourself, discovering this about a person is going to heavily color your views not only of him but of other things he does, and you're not going to enjoy seeing films he stars in any more. Since the film studios aren't idiots, he's going to be essentially blacklisted from any future roles. There's the consequences.
However there is no law against our hypothetical racist being uninvited from the opening of an art gallery whose first exhibition is the work of african-american artists. It is a private organization who does not want to associate with someone.
Or to put it simply: it's OK to downvote someone. That's how communities work!
I don't like radical anti-abortionists who camp out at abortion clinics, but I recognize we all have this right. I wish they would pursue their goals more civilly, they would likely get some sympathy if they were humane about it, for example.
That's probably what mc32 is referring to.
Non radical anti abortionists are most moms and dads who prefer not to abort but don't go out there and agitate.
edit: but apparently I misinterpreted the comment so mea culpa, my bar for "radical" is different than mc32's.
It boils down to this: if you think wrongly you aren't allowed to speak. We have all been down this rabbit hole before, none of this is new, it never works out well.
Of course there's consequences for your speech. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence.
If you're an outspoken Nazi, you have the right to your speech, but I have the right to not interact with you, and companies have the right not to serve you. Those are consequences of your speech.
Freedom of speech means you won't be arrested for it, not that everyone needs to listen.
So you'd be fine if amazon refused to serve you because you're a pro-union sympathizer, right?
I can't believe people don't see the similarity and are willingly going down this path. It's so blindingly obvious that it's the same tactic used in Stalinism, Maoism and McCarthyism but people gleefully want to wrap their arms around it.
None. For organizing a violent insurrection? Several.
Totally agreed. Notably, nobody has suggested this. And nobody has, at least so far, been prosecuted for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
At best, those "peaceful" protestors (who somehow in their naive purity managed not to be able to read the vibe of a crowd that erected a noose and gallows outside the White House, or notice the rioting, broken doors and tear gas) are still at least guilty of trespassing, and some of vandalism.
Vandalism would only apply to those who stole or defaced something, certainly not the majority.
And neither of these charges justifies holding a political prisoner for 6+ months without trial, as the US government has done.
I'll let the Justice Department know they can drop all charges because slumdev from the internet has rendered their verdict.
>Vandalism would only apply to those who stole or defaced something, certainly not the majority.
The majority didn't enter the Capitol, and the majority haven't been charged with anything. If your assertion is that people are being arrested and charged with simply being there the actual criminal charges levied prove otherwise[0,1]. People who have been accused of committing actual crimes are being charged for those crimes.
>And neither of these charges justifies holding a political prisoner for 6+ months without trial, as the US government has done.
They aren't political prisoners. They aren't being persecuted for their political beliefs. Most people charged are out on bail, and the ones who aren't are the ones charged with serious crimes.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_charges_brought_in_th...
[1]https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/six-months-january-6th-attac...
If the accusation is true, then it's a crime and the punishment should be much more severe. If the accusation is false, then it's a non-issue (and clearly not a crime), and there should be no punishment.
Big tech and universities do not have the skills, experience, resources or obligation to resolve the question of guilt clearly and fairly. Let's leave that to the courts.
I'm not saying things are perfect or that there aren't any problems, but I feel sometimes the historical perspective is a bit lost.
How is the "historical perspective" relevant here? Are you just arguing "we actually have it pretty good right now compared to the past so we shouldn't feel so bad about freedom of speech slipping"?