Free speech never implied freedom from consequences though - this isn't the government suppressing RMS, it's people reacting to his free speech and deciding that they don't like it.
> Free speech never implied freedom from consequences though - this isn't the government suppressing RMS, it's people reacting to his free speech and deciding that they don't like it.
Good point - looking at the petitions, it's become obvious that the people deciding they don't like RMS's speeach are in the minority.
Is it worth firing an entire board because a minority feels insecure?
On your mind, is tyranny by the minority better than tyranny by the majority?
...just because it's a minority doesn't mean it's inherently wrong. At the risk of the ghost of Godwin's, black people were a minority in the 1960s, yet still had a good point about their aims.
And as for whether or not the board chooses to listen to the feedback, entirely up to them and their governance structure.
> ...just because it's a minority doesn't mean it's inherently wrong. At the risk of the ghost of Godwin's, black people were a minority in the 1960s, yet still had a good point about their aims.
Another good point: if the cancel-culture we are currently suffering under now was practiced in the 60s, black people, women, minorities, etc would never had gotten equal rights.
It's because everyone was allowed to speak that the message came across and won minds. The fact that people are asking for the silencing of their opponents is a good indicator that their arguments do not stand up to scrutiny.
Like it or not, RMS does scrutinise the status quo. Petitioning for exemption from critics makes it hard to support those people doing the petitioning.
> It's because everyone was allowed to speak that the message came across and won minds.
Eh, you need to revisit your history lessons. There was plenty of cancel culture against blacks and there was also A LOT of violence used against them when the black protested against it and against their treatment.
> Eh, you need to revisit your history lessons. There was plenty of cancel culture against blacks and there was also A LOT of violence used against them when the black protested against it and against their treatment.
Certainly, but supporters of the movement were not cancelled simply by association.
This movement is literally trying to silence anyone who even associates with their target.
> supporters of the movement were not cancelled simply by association.
What you are saying is the equal to claiming that no black people were fired or otherwise hurt in situations not directly related to protests because they were taking part of the movement.
I'm sorry, but that is simply laughable as not only was that common, it was also fairly common for the Klan to lynch black people that was part of it. There is indeed a difference between cancel culture now and then and that difference is that it was STRONGER then. By a lot.
> ...just because it's a minority doesn't mean it's inherently wrong.
In this case, at least one of the main points is inherently wrong, because it's based on a lie repeated in some media outlets that Stallman was defending Epstein. But when you actually read his email, you realize it was the opposite.
We are not talking about racial minorities fighting of equal rights, we are talking about a small group of people inside(and outside) of an organization that is attempting a coup.
How small of a minority should be allowed to dictate that?
This argument is full of equivocation. The consequences of speech are exactly what is being debated. An exchange of ideas, then yes. Censorship by the mob (instead of government), then no.
No, freedom of speech really does imply some protections, such as not getting instantly fired or jailed for your opinions.
As another commenter pointed out, the fact we are having a debate on the subject is the correct way to resolve this situation and decide if RMS should continue to represent the FSF. The larger issue is a tiny minority have decided it is unacceptable to have this conversation and he must go ASAP.
> the fact we are having a debate on the subject is the correct way to resolve this situation and decide if RMS should continue to represent the FSF.
Was there a debate over whether Stallman should have been brought back onto the board of directors? No. Nor was there a vote. It just happened. But I guess democracy doesn't matter when it's the divine right of kings?
Good point - looking at the petitions, it's become obvious that the people deciding they don't like RMS's speeach are in the minority.
Is it worth firing an entire board because a minority feels insecure?
On your mind, is tyranny by the minority better than tyranny by the majority?