[Mikhail_Edoshin]

> Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from social consequences.

I often see this phrase and it looks like a fallacy to me. Does anyone question its validity? Social consequences are a severe thing, in practice they mean losing a job or position, boycotting, etc. In ancient Greece to expel a person was a very strong punishment. Nowadays the associated hardbacks are milder perhaps, but still are pretty severe.

If speech is so potent a weapon that to protect against it we have to use extreme social defenses like expulsion, why not to use the same weapon against the perpetrators? Why not to speak in return? Stallman says something, you say something. Take that, Richard Stallman!

I would say that the only appropriate social consequence of free speech could be other free speech.

Also, a distinct characteristic of a true community is that it's inclusive. It can expel its members, but this has to be a very rare event, only when that person's action are actually destroying the community. "Creepy and inappropriate behavior" that went along for many years is hardly that. It's a mere personality quirk. [Addition] And I'd say that this expulsion endangers the community much more than whatever Stallman was inappropriately doing all these years.

[namarie]

> If speech is so potent a weapon that to protect against it we have to use extreme social defenses like expulsion, why not to use the same weapon against the perpetrators? Why not to speak in return? Stallman says something, you say something. Take that, Richard Stallman!

Because the power of the speech in question depends upon the power of the speaker. This isn't rocket science. If I as a random human person say something creepy to you on the street you can just go away. If Stallman does it and you are working under him you have to weigh a whole lot of things (academic standing, his prestige, the possibility that a whole lot of people will defend him just because of who he is and accuse you of accusing him of a "thoughtcrime") in your response. It's an assymetrical situation.

[doubleunplussed]

In a world that respects free speech, you would be more empowered to criticise authority, not less. You're basically saying that Stallman’s speech must have consequences otherwise the little guy might face consequences by criticising him. But the pro free speech crowd are advocating for a world where you and stallman criticise each other harshly, but both get to keep your jobs, it being a strong norm that whoever calls for the other to lose their job over speech automatically loses the argument.

I can't believe people are so short sighted about free speech. The people who are happy with control of speech will regret advocating for it as soon as it spreads outside of the domains where their allies presently have power.

[namarie]

> In a world that respects free speech, you would be more empowered to criticise authority, not less.

Sure, I guess. In this case, as far as I can see, Stallman's coworkers' speech about his terrible behavior led to him resigning. Nothing wrong with that.

> You're basically saying that Stallman’s speech must have consequences otherwise the little guy might face consequences by criticising him.

I'm nowhere close to saying that. The "little guy" is already facing the consequences I delineated, as this thread shows. Speeches have consequences, both Stallman's and anyone's.

> But the pro free speech crowd are advocating for a world where you and stallman criticise each other harshly, but both get to keep your jobs, it being a strong norm that whoever calls for the other to lose their job over speech automatically loses the argument.

The thing is, this presupposes that each other's speech or criticism is equivalent, which it isn't. A creepy remark is not equivalent to a criticism of that remark - I really didn't think I'd have to spell this out. If someone is being creepy towards coworkers and subordinates and this behavior continues for years, then yes, this should have consequences - up to and including the person in question losing their job, depending on the severity. Calling for someone to be fired shouldn't lose someone their "argument" if the person should be fired.

There's some equivocation here that this is some sort of intellectual academic dispute that led to him resigning. It isn't. It's reports of his creepy behavior, not two people "criticising" each other.