[cgrealy]

There are so many things wrong with that article, but let's start with this one:

> Yet in many other countries— perhaps still in most of them— mob justice, unethical businesses behavior without complaint, and complete disregard for any rights of criminals is a normal daily occurrence. Their citizens know that far away silly Americans bother with fair trials and non-ironically litigating the temperature of coffee, but it would never occur to them that it may be a reasonable thing to try in their own society.

I hate to break it to you, but the rest of the world does not view the US as some bastion of liberty. Most of the rest of the world has much the same set of rights and protections that US citizens enjoy.

What's truly amazing is that the author fundamentally misses the point of the article, that while you can say whatever you like, you are not shielded from the consequences of saying that.

If you are the public representative of company x, and you post something awful on twitter, then people are allowed use their free speech to say they no longer wish to do business with company x while you are the representative.

[amadeuspagel]

> What's truly amazing is that the author fundamentally misses the point of the article, that while you can say whatever you like, you are not shielded from the consequences of saying that.

It's appropriate to share one of those memes just as stupid, harmful and widespread as that xkcd comic here. Maybe even more so, maybe this really does refute the author's premise. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would justify any kind of punishment for speech. The consequence for critizizing Kim Jong Un in Noth Korea is that you get thrown into a labor camp. Freedom of speech, after all, does not mean freedom from consequences.

The fundamental error here is to speak of consequences as if they are things that just happen, like a law of nature, and not a conscious attempt to punish people.

[pwinnski]

I think you are over-focusing on the word "consequences" here. Nobody is saying all consequences are fair play.

"you get thrown into a labor camp" seems to be a different kind of consequence than "others use their free speech to disagree with you."

I don't like it when my bad ideas or ignorant statements or heck, even my true but unpleasant statements are criticized by people who either know better than I do or worse, don't, but nobody is actually throwing me in a labor camp. I can continue to speak back to my critics and either accept their correction or continue to disagree with them.

[cgrealy]

The consequences frequently are an attempt to punish people and often justifiably so.

If someone says something racist, homophobic or sexist, then yeah, maybe I want to punish them by not buying their product or not voting for them or whatever.

But we can judge the response on its merits too.

Being thrown in jail for criticism of the government? Not ok. (Reductio ad absurdum, btw... no one has suggested that what someone says gives you carte blanche)

Boycotting homophobic sandwich restaurant? Totally fine.

Firing your employee for something they said on their own time? Exceptionally murky and very much case by case.

[happytoexplain]

>Taken to its logical conclusion, it would justify any kind of punishment for speech.

The trajectory of the argument doesn't point anywhere near that conclusion.

[rbecker]

And if you're accused of murder, Facebook can use their free speech to censor anyone fundraising money for your defense, and crowdfunding sites and payment processors can use their free speech and freedom of association, and refuse to process any donations you receive: https://reclaimthenet.org/facebook-blocks-givesendgo-kyle-ri...

And if you're black, a business can use their freedom of association and refuse- oh, no, wait, no they can't. That would be a problem. Even though the constitution allows it. But this, this isn't.

[cgrealy]

Yes, because race is a protected class. Being a murderer... isn't.

[rbecker]

I thought we were discussing what the law should be, not what it is. Or more broadly, how companies and people should act, not what they can get away with under the law.

As for the murderer bit... well, if we already know it was murder, why are we bothering with a trial? Lets just ask Facebook, and sentence him accordingly.

[yokaze]

You are right, there is a distinction between a murderer and bring accused of it. Still the point of the grandparent stands: being accused of a crime is not a protected class. People are ostracized when not even having to face court, or being judged not guilty. And I bet, there are cases were you feel entitled to do so too.

Point is, those are individual judgements and I kind of doubt that you really want to advocate being mandated by law not to do so.

[rbecker]

> individual judgements

There's a difference between an individual making a judgement, a payment processor making a judgement, and a communications platform with over 2 billion users making a judgement.

Perhaps not (yet) legally, but we should at least be able to admit the effects on society are very different. In fact, we do, when it suits us. Talk about Facebook "allowing hate to spread", and all those "private company they can do what they want" arguments disappear (or get made by an entirely different set of people), as some people miraculously become able to understand the difference in kind between a single individual and one of the largest companies on Earth.

[ykoll58]

Civil rights are protected under law, specifically. Regarding race, if a business receives public benefits e.g roads, grants, tax breaks. Then the entire public is allowed access to that business (products/services) or they should not receive said benefits.

TL;DR of the article is... “Freedom of speech isn't just a legal assurance that congress shall make no law abridging it. It is also a set of cultural norms rooted deeply in a long lineage of hard won ideas.”

What about the freedom of those stating they don’t want your speech on their platforms?

Freedom of speech goes both ways. Beautiful thing is, if the author doesn’t like it then he can write an amendment to the constitution and request a vote.