[altacc]

> people are afraid of saying the truth.

The vast amount of people on traditional and social media saying all the things that you claim people are afraid to say refutes this. Whatever you think people are too afraid to say, there is somebody saying it.

Free speech doesn't mean people get to voice any idea without scrutiny. Other's people's free speech also exists. What people tend to mean is "I used to be able to say this without being criticised" and the loss of that privilege is unsettling. If they can't express an opinion and sufficiently support it against objections and criticism then it might not be such a good opinion.

[collyw]

Rubbish, I am very careful about what I say, and I post more conservative views than most people I know on FB. I avoid posting anything at all on Twitter. I am pretty sure I am not the only one.

I don't even consider myself conservative, just that social media wise anything that isn't hard left is labelled white supremacy or racist.

[DiogenesKynikos]

> the loss of that privilege is unsettling

It's more the loss of one's livelihood that is unsettling. Criticism is fine. Campaigning to get people someone fired over petty nonsense is not. All it takes is a few prominent examples - and there have been many - to cow people who disagree into silence.

[philwelch]

Finding someone’s employer and harassing that employer into firing the person isn’t “criticism”.

[altacc]

But it is a consequence of their actions. Free speech can exist, but not free speech free of consequences. That person would need to find an employer who aligns with their desired actions.

[bE9a3S5So8igd3]

> But it is a consequence of their actions...

Actually, it seems to be leftists who are under the impression that their actions should have no consequences.

https://news.yahoo.com/harvard-grad-says-she-fired-125450691...

[altacc]

I do agree that some of the responses to people's actions become harassment, but this happens across the board. In much of the right wing media you can't criticise anything in America without being labelled un-American, a traitor, socialist, antifa or whatever the current label is they're using to bypass the cognitive functions of their audience.

The question is, given that perfection is impossible, what amount of injustice, such as harassment, is acceptable for a greater good. This question constantly manifests in the economic, legal and social systems we live in. Just like the legal system, there will be some injustices that can't be avoided any everyone has their personal perspective on how much and to whom is acceptable.

Your point above blames “leftists” but you would be greatly mistaken if you think this is a one way street. There are cases of people on the left losing jobs for critising the right. People On both sides have received harassment and death threats from the other side.

In summary, you're complaining about the left doing something without realizing or acknowledging that this isn't restricted to just those on the left or right, everyone is doing this. But if you're one one side you'll ignore attacks by your own side, labeling them legitimate defense, and over-criticise the other side's same actions as unjustifable attacks. Everyone would be better off if we could all acknowledging our bias more.

I think it was Jefferson who thought that freedom of the press was essential even though press would become partisan and present opinions not news. He idealistically and, in hindsight, naively thought that people would be able to use reason & understanding to draw the true picture. But that's not what happens: people are baited, told what to think and react impulsively. Again, that's not just the left or the right, it's people. The problem is always people. To paraphrase Trump: there are awful people on both sides.

[philwelch]

Idi Amin once said, “there is freedom of speech but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech.”

[bE9a3S5So8igd3]

> vast amount of people on traditional and social media saying all the things that you claim people are afraid to say refutes this.

Nope. As the OP suggested, lots of people aren't being open & honest about their opinions. Media, tech companies, etc. are overrun by deluded leftists. People are losing their jobs for defending their property. Current western culture is promoting witch hunts against anyone who opposes ideas like "there are 46 genders" or "systemic racism."

This is the modern, western, leftist suppression complex.

If you think that it is not the case that a lot of people are staying silent for fear of mob retribution, you are wrong.

[altacc]

> People are losing their jobs for defending their property.

I'm interested in which cases you're referring to here.

I'll add a caveat that small numbers of outlying events which might have been excessive or wrong do not invalidate the notion that society shouldn't hold people accountable for their actions or be judged on their opinions. That's an existing concept, what's happening is a reframing of what's acceptable, which is something that has happened many times in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

[bE9a3S5So8igd3]

> do not invalidate the notion that society shouldn't hold people accountable for their actions or be judged on their opinions

You're conflating passive judgement with active harassment, witch hunts, for "having the wrong opinion." In fact you don't even have to voice an opinion to be the subject of modern leftist witch hunts. Today, being white and smirking is enough to provoke the mania that has consumed the western world. If you're caught in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and covered by leftist media. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2019_Lincoln_Memorial_...

[altacc]

I do agree that some of the responses to people's actions become harassment, but this happens across the board. In much of the right wing media you can't criticise anything in America without being labelled un-American, a traitor, socialist, antifa or whatever the current label is they're using to bypass the cognitive functions of their audience.

The question is, given that perfection is impossible, what amount of injustice, such as harassment, is acceptable for a greater good. This question constantly manifests in the economic, legal and social systems we live in. Just like the legal system, there will be some injustices that can't be avoided any everyone has their personal perspective on how much and to whom is acceptable.

It's interesting that the example you link to is largely about freedom of the press as that's exactly what the first amendment protects. In that case there is clear action and consequence on both sides. People are free to say want they think and there were consequences.

Your point above was that people lose their jobs because they say something that the left-wing disagrees with and that harassment leads to job loss. The example you provided fails to back that up directly but does provide an example of someone on the left losing their job for something they said. There was also backlash against several other people who had commented on the students' behaviour. There were death threats to people on both sides. It was a f-ing mess all round.

In summary, you're complaining about the left doing something without realizing or acknowledging that this isn't restricted to just those on the left or right, everyone is doing this. But if you're one one side you'll ignore attacks by your own side, labeling them legitimate defense, and over-criticise the other side's same actions as unjustifable attacks. Everyone would be better off if we could all acknowledging our bias more.

I think it was Jefferson who thought that freedom of the press was essential even though press would become partisan and present opinions not news. He idealistically and, in hindsight, naively thought that people would be able to use reason & understanding to draw the true picture. But that's not what happens: people are baited, told what to think and react impulsively. Again, that's not just the left or the right, it's people. The problem is always people. To paraphrase Trump: there are awful people on both sides.