>Freedom of speech isn't the freedom to not be publicly judged about what you say.
This is not just about being judged, it's about being judged and executed for your opinions.
The judges and the juries have already handed out their verdict and will personally hand out the punishment, and if you dare question it you'll likely be next on the list. For example, I've seen that those who sided against RMS create a script to block those who signed the petition in his support. It's infuriating, it's a childish behavior that doesn't help anyone, it serves only to further polarize and radicalize the two sides, and further reduces the room for discussion. If there even was room left, that is. [1]
This is not an ecosystem where people are able to express their ideas. There is either black or white. You are either with us or against us. And if you express moderate opinions you risk angering both sides, and good luck with that.
You have to carefully weight every single word, because all it takes is for a single person to take issue with your comment enough to signal it to the cancel culture mob on Twitter to mobilize a horde of vocal complainers with plenty of spare time that will do everything they can to make you regret ever typing it out, either now or in the future. It's outright barbaric behavior from both sides that has been seen time and time again in the last years.
Do you honestly consider this "freedom of speech"?
---
[1] As another commenter points out, this kind of stuff comes from both sides. The given example was just fresh in my mind.
Freedom of speech is about the freedom to make political opinions while retaining your place in society as a citizen.
None of the public judgements about RMS are about anything technical, anything about free software, or anything that touch on him running the FSF. He voiced an unfashionable opinion on sex and the laws about sex.
This is a political act to blacklist a man for his political opinions from work in a profession that he is qualified for.
> Freedom of speech is about the freedom to make political opinions while retaining your place in society as a citizen.
No, freedom of speech is about not being censored for expressing your opinions. It is not a right to be facilitated in expressing your opinions, or freedom of consequences for your opinions.
Go tell that to all the minorities around the world who have state granted "freedom of speech" but are suppressed/controlled by mobs in other countries.
It's counter to freedom of speech and it isn't acceptable.
Freedom of speech is about law. The first ammendment says:
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Can't you see that a position that requires public speaking requires someone who is good at public speaking? Someone who doesn't continually cause misunderstanding because they're so poor at communicating?
Exactly, if you've listened to RMS's speeches, you'll realize that he's a very good communicator. He is usually well prepared and gets his points across well. But most people find his opinions (even his nonpolitical technical ones) extreme and therefore conclude that he isn't a good speaker.
The problem is who's deciding what is and isn't acceptable, RMS has been saying clearly derogatory statements about religion, the basis of most of our shared morality, for decades without a single peep from the virtue crowd. He says a few edgy this about something else and then the pitch forks are out.
The problem is that I'm not sure we have much of a shared morality any more.
Software development forces us to be more precise about what our process is. Sales wants to automate their pipeline - oh but what do you mean I have to tell you who to call next? Just call the important ones. We can no longer 'fudge' things.
Agile methodology is causing this problem in many companies. Asking senior management to stack rank their projects is an intensly political issue. Saying the project timelines will vary based on team velocity takes away simplicity of project management.
As software eats the world then more of the world must be upfront and precise about what it means. This is going to lead to a lot of soul searching. The most obvious example is the Trolley problem in autonomous cars - do you program a car to swerve to avoid the child, killing the driver, or save the driver, kill the kid.
This sort of devils own choice will become more rampant as more of the world becomes automatable.
Online speech is just one of these. Now that every pub conversation can be spread to millions of listeners, we need to find ways to agree on what is and is not acceptable.
The problem people are finding is that what was tolerated by people in the 19th hole in Alabama is not acceptable by people listening in Delhi.
The human species is going to have to find ways to get along together. I think that will (eventually) be a good thing.
And now it's unfortunately nearly impossible for us to have a discussion about what various religions did or did not say about topics like homosexuality.
People all around the world have state sanctioned freedom of speech but are oppressed by the majority in their country.
This infantile view of freedom of speech is simply a way to pretend you care about freedom of speech while sanctioning other ways to silence/punish people. Even when that punishment is completely disproportionate too.
So, whilst I was thinking of some old white guy from the UK I saw last night complaining about 'cry-baby safe spaces', and felt that I could happily not listen and judge him, you are more sensibly thinking of ... a gay rape crisis centre that wants to publicise and support victims, but they find themselves in Russia or Turkey.
So its not enough to have freedom of speech, one also needs freedom from persecution and the other rights listed below:
I'm not sure how you can solve the "problem" you describe.
Freedom of speech means just that - you are free to say what you want/think.
Others don't have to agree with you. They might leave the room/not be your friend/unfollow you/fire you/stop buying your products.
If your opinion is against the majority in any situation, you're going to have a hard time - whether it's about something important, or just whether you think pineapple should go on a pizza.
True, and I'm judging the public on their flimsy judgement and groupthink. 90% of the outrage and even half the argument on subjects like this comes from people joining in without having had an independent thought or any first hand experience with the source material (RMS and his behavior)
This is the same idiotic phrase as "Freedom of Speech is not Freedom from Consequences".
You know who else thinks this way? Many repressive countries such as those who control how women / minorities / etc behave in public. It's essentially mob pressure and destroys genuine freedom of speech.
You're basically expressing a threat that will be used against people who openly do not agree with the majority.
This is not just about being judged, it's about being judged and executed for your opinions. The judges and the juries have already handed out their verdict and will personally hand out the punishment, and if you dare question it you'll likely be next on the list. For example, I've seen that those who sided against RMS create a script to block those who signed the petition in his support. It's infuriating, it's a childish behavior that doesn't help anyone, it serves only to further polarize and radicalize the two sides, and further reduces the room for discussion. If there even was room left, that is. [1]
This is not an ecosystem where people are able to express their ideas. There is either black or white. You are either with us or against us. And if you express moderate opinions you risk angering both sides, and good luck with that.
You have to carefully weight every single word, because all it takes is for a single person to take issue with your comment enough to signal it to the cancel culture mob on Twitter to mobilize a horde of vocal complainers with plenty of spare time that will do everything they can to make you regret ever typing it out, either now or in the future. It's outright barbaric behavior from both sides that has been seen time and time again in the last years.
Do you honestly consider this "freedom of speech"?
---
[1] As another commenter points out, this kind of stuff comes from both sides. The given example was just fresh in my mind.