[cambalache]

It can mean for example, that having CP on your PC although highly immoral, should not be punished by law,reserving that fate for distributors and especially creators. This is an arbitrary distinction by law and even if it can be considered a regrettable opinion, nobody should face any consequence for having it.

A similar argument is already in practice in many places where illegal drugs possession is not punished (up to certain limits) but drug production is. Or when offering prostitution is not punished but requesting it is. Mind I am not saying they are exactly the same, I only showing that legal distinction is arbitrary and people should be free to comment on it.

[CathedralBorrow]

> and even if it can be considered a regrettable opinion, nobody should face any consequence for having it.

I think this is the crux of the difference here. I don't think that expressing opinions should never have any consequences whatsoever. That's an absurd proposition to me. Maybe that's why I seem to be talking past people about this.

[pron]

> nobody should face any consequence for having it.

Nobody ever faces any consequences for having any opinion, but many people very often face consequence for expressing some opinions, in some forums and under certain circumstances. For example, politician are commonly voted out of office, losing their job in the process, for expressing some opinions, and here in the UK even ordinary party members are commonly expelled for expressing some opinions. So even in free democracies, we accept and even expect certain consequences for voicing certain opinions, by certain people, in certain forums, and under certain circumstances. The decision of what those consequences are, and who, why and when they would face them is often made by a particular relevant institution. So it's a matter of degree, not of principle.

[coldtea]

>I don't think that expressing opinions should never have any consequences whatsoever.

Which is irrelevant, as the parent didn't say that "expressing opinions should never have any consequences whatsoever".

He just said that having that particular opinion should not have any consequences.

That said,

>That's an absurd proposition to me.

What exactly is absurd about free speech and no consequences for expressing whatever opinion (even "Hitler's ideas were good") -- except when opinion becomes action?

Obviously nobody includes "people shouldn't dislike you for your opinions", or "your readership should not change for your opinions" when they say about no consequences.

They mean: not getting thrown to jail, not loosing your job, especially if it's totally unrelated with your opinions, not being ex-communicated, etc...

And if friends and family could also get sticks out of their asses, and e.g. be OK with you having a different opinion (e.g. being atheist or a Democrat or a Republican or whatever), and just judge you on what you actually do, that would be great too...

(of course you shouldn't write a post about how "X company is crap" if you work for X and not expect to get fired")

[CathedralBorrow]

> (of course you shouldn't write a post about how "X company is crap" if you work for X and not expect to get fired")

I'll use this as my example for why I think it's absurd. Why do you think you shouldn't write that post? It's just an opinion, right?

If I understand you correctly then you're saying that there are some opinions that you could expect to be fired for expressing, even if they are completely legal to express. I agree with that.

Our definitions of what you can expect to have consequences however seems very different. And that's fine.

[coldtea]

>Why do you think you shouldn't write that post? It's just an opinion, right?

Au contraire, I think you should write that post if you're of that opinion. And I think it would be beneficial to society to write it too.

What I wrote is that you shouldn't write it "and not expect to get fired" -- because that's what will probably happen. If it was to me, that shouldn't happen either. But a company is a private business, and the law allows them to fire people at will (I'd change that too, like we have it in Europe).

I stated though that you should not "lose your job [for your opinions], especially if it's totally unrelated with your opinions" (the job being unrelated to what you spoke, that is).

[CathedralBorrow]

But surely you can see how that can become absurd.

Extreme example: An employee at your company keeps a blog about how having sex with children is perfectly fine, how black people are all stupid and how jews should be exterminated because Hitler had the right idea. Also that almost all accusations of rape are false because all women are lying bitches. All perfectly legal opinions that don't relate directly to his work.

Is it your position that none of this should have any effect on his position?

[eyko]

It depends on wether they act on it or not: do they have sex with children, treat black people at work as if they were stupid, or have problems working with jewish colleagues? Do their biases affect the workplace? To be clear, I believe that all our biases are present in the workplace, which is why the philosophy behind separation of power should apply, somehow. That being said, I'd never campaign or ask for the firing of a colleague because they held some racist ideas (I'm black), unless their actions or our interactions reflected said racist ideas.

I want to live in a free society where it's okay to be wrong.