[msg3]

Punching people in the face is illegal regardless of the reason - I don't really see how that's relevant?

Are you really saying that it should be impossible for someone to lose their job over what they say? If someone, for example, threatened to kill a co-worker, you don't think they should be fired? I appreciate that this is an extreme example, but when we talk about rights, don't we have to cover all examples of speech?

I'd agree that social media mobs trying to get people fired is a bad thing, that it's become too easy to whip up such mobs, and that as a society we should try to be more tolerant of other views. But I don't see somebody losing a job over something they've said as a rights issue - you don't have a right to a job.

[ttt0]

> Punching people in the face is illegal regardless of the reason - I don't really see how that's relevant?

The 'freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences' was popularized (repopularized?) and became a somewhat mainstream talking point in America around 2016-17 to justify political violence with the "punch a nazi" thing and stuff. It's the "paradox of tolerance".

[msg3]

Fair enough. I'm certainly not advocating that it's ok to punch someone over something they said.

The context of this thread (expressing political opinions at work) makes me think the other types of consequence are more relevant for this discussion though.

[ForHackernews]

> you don't have a right to a job.

In non-America places (or in the few remaining unionised workplaces in America) you typically have some right to due process, and you can't just be terminated on a whim because you said something the boss didn't like.

[msg3]

Yes, and I think that's a good thing. But I don't see think that's incompatible with my view here - that freedom of speech doesn't mean I have the right to say anything and expect to keep my job.

If I was to say something offensive, I should be accorded due process, but the result of that process may be that I'm let go.

[ForHackernews]

Sure, I probably largely agree with that. But there's a difference between what you're describing and what often happens in the real world where a twitter mob calls for you to be fired and your company immediately shitcans you to placate the yobs.

e.g. https://arstechnica.com/staff/2013/03/donglegate-is-classic-...

[msg3]

I'd agree that a twitter mob getting someone fired is in most cases a bad thing and I can think of a bunch of reasons why it's a bad thing. But "infringing on the employees right to free speech" isn't one of them.

This might seem a bit pedantic, but I do think it's important. If something is a violation of someone's rights then there doesn't need to be any further discussion - it shouldn't be allowed. I think claiming that this is a free speech issue is not only wrong, but also shuts down much needed discussion about where we set the limits of our tolerance.

[ForHackernews]

I think we largely agree, and where we disagree is quibbling over semantics.

I don't consider myself a "speech absolutist", so I wouldn't agree that assigning, say, twitter mobbing to the category of "free speech issues" shuts down further discussion.

[teddyh]

> Punching people in the face is illegal regardless of the reason

Sure, but see all the “punch nazis” memes. Examples:

https://web.archive.org/web/20210118210335/https://www.jwz.o...

https://punchingnazis.tumblr.com/