[GhotiFish]

To be blunt, it kinda does.

Before, the major actor that could issue genuine consequences for speech was the state. The word "Consequences" in the statement "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences", means a punch to the face or a stern shaming from townsfolk. You got on with it, kept doing your job, continued to live your life.

When the state objected to your speech, it would end your life, it would destroy you.

But fast forward to today. Suddenly loud demographics of people have the ability to destroy you in the long term, destroy your working prospects, smear your reputation, mark you as unhireable, harass you everywhere. State level consequences. It's no longer a punch to the face in a bar for obnoxious speech. It's no longer the "consequences" in "freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences". Those consequences are now state level. How meaningless would this statement be if it was "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences from the state."

"You're free to talk, no one will stop you, but we the state still get to destroy your life." How meaningless is that?!

You say people shouldn't be vilified as an outcast. But that's what will happen!

[rbanffy]

Before, he'd have said it among his friends, who would dismiss it and forget his opinions the following morning.

He published his opinion, that Google's efforts that enabled thousands of his female peers to pursue careers there, are misguided and harmful, that some of his female coworkers are biologically unsuited to their jobs. He did it to himself.

[slavak]

He said nothing of the sort you're attributing to him here, yet here you are with the pitchfork. What brought this on him was the internet lynch mob condemning him as "anti-diversity" without taking the time to even look at the pictures he included in his memo, let alone read the damn thing.