[WilliamMayor]

I usually think of free speech in this context to mean freedom from state intervention. The state shouldn't be allowed to treat you differently from others because of what you say.

Here we're talking about how the public's treatment of Mozilla and Eich have changed because of their speech. This is perfectly rational.

To give you a counter example. If we accept that "having a right to it" means never "suffering consequences" then I'm never allowed to form an opinion of a person based on the things they say. I have to think "well he said all those racist things but I've never seen him in a KKK uniform so my opinion is still neutral".

TL;DR On issues of free speech we, the people, can make people suffer consequences as we see fit. The state cannot.

[anatoly]

Do you then support the legitimacy of the Hollywood blacklist during the McCarthy era? It was a purely private sector action with no government enforcement. Furthermore, communist sympathizers were widely reviled and feared in the society as a whole.

[coldtea]

>I usually think of free speech in this context to mean freedom from state intervention. The state shouldn't be allowed to treat you differently from others because of what you say.

No, it was also meant against any kind of intervention. Also from the church for example. Or bigoted crowed. Or lynching.

Take a racist Southern town for example. Is this idea of free speech compatible with the town people giving a black guy a hard time if speaks freely (not hiring him, the ocassional threat, passive agreesive attitude towards him, etc), just because the state is not involved?

>To give you a counter example. If we accept that "having a right to it" means never "suffering consequences" then I'm never allowed to form an opinion of a person based on the things they say

Well, opinion is also free speech (well, thought and speech) itself. Not really talking about that when discussing actual consequences. Or even "I'm not going to buy this guy's book now that he said that".