[carlosjobim]

Shunning is meaningless unless it is backed up by real consequences. By itself it isn't a consequence, at least not in discussions about freedom of speech, where consequences usually are things like being executed, imprisoned, tortured, put in a camp, put to slave labour, fined, publicly humiliated, exiled, banned from working in your sector, fired, banned from employment, and so on.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean everybody or even anybody has to like what you say, but you should be protected from repercussions.

[amanaplanacanal]

Public humiliation is also free speech. Calling out somebody for racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc, is free speech.

Being fired is certainly a consequence, but at will employment pretty much means you can be fired for anything.

[carlosjobim]

> Public humiliation is also free speech.

It is not. It is a crime or a punishment. You can't drag somebody to a struggle session because you didn't like what they said. You can't spit on them in the streets, follow them with a chanting mob, tear off their clothes, throw rotten food at them, or any such things which are humiliating somebody in public.

"Calling out somebody for racism" or for "being woke" in public debate is not public humiliation in that sense.

Go ask teenagers and adolescents in gang-infested territory what public humiliation is if you want to know. They get forced on camera to go down on their knees and kiss the boots of gang members, or do worse things on camera as punishment for something they have said that was "disrespectful". Then those videos are spread as public humiliation all across the networks of these people and youth at large.

[iamnothere]

Public humiliation is free speech, true. Actively attempting to interfere with someone’s business relationships due to their speech is a civil tort, sending threatening messages to someone due to their speech is a crime, swatting is an even bigger crime, stalking is a crime, conspiring with people in a Discord to do most of this stuff is a felony thanks to laws regarding conspiracy.

There’s a certain motte-and-bailey that goes on with the “speech has consequences” crowd, where the frontline people just say their people are only engaging in legal counterspeech, while all this horrible stuff goes on behind the scenes. And then they laugh about the horrible stuff when it happens and say things like “FAFO.”

I almost never see would-be cancellers (regardless of political affiliation) call out people on their side for encouraging or engaging in blatantly illegal conduct in order to “own” their opponents. Often they hang out in the same group chats!