| > And in this case, we're talking about a CEO, the public face of a company, not an otherwise private citizen. This is true, and similar to what got people like Adria Richards fired in other scenarios where they've lost the ability to be able to professionally represent their company through their speech alone. > Anyway, you're essentially arguing that free speech means freedom from consequences, and it just doesn't. Yes, but keep in mind that there's a difference between individual freedom of speech among individuals and what society does to individuals. IMO people should modulate the consequences they are free to impose based on the principle that free speech is valued. There's a reason Rockwell's famous painting exhibiting freedom of speech is a man standing in a crowded town hall meeting. Whatever that man says, he will have to still live with those people afterwards, and so everyone involved will have to understand their part in what "freedom of speech" really means in America. Of course the government can't ban people from ostracizing someone based on their speech. The point is that in a free society (as opposed to a free governance), the people at large shouldn't need to be told by the government not to ostracize someone who speaks their mind. Your boss imposing consequences for your stupid tongue is one thing. But should it be right for your boss to froth up a mob to go after you, as long as they don't break the law? |
I agree that the consequences should be modulated. I've said elsewhere that death threats are unacceptable, but this is an unsolved problem in society at large. It's not unique to Eich's situation.
Other than that, the consequences are rather mild for someone with as deep a resume as Eich's. I'm sure we'll hear about it if he's been blackballed from the entire industry, or someone sabotages a new company of his, or what have you. I suppose it could happen but I think it unlikely.
Likewise, aside from behavior that I'm sure we both agree ought never happen, it's hard for me to find fault with people exercising their own right to criticism & browser choice. It's certainly not the moral equivalent of a mob threatening his physical well-being, and a (forced) resignation isn't morally equivalent to being thrust into the wilderness with nothing but the clothes in your back.
You're saying we should ostensibly set the standard higher the bare minimum of legality, and that's fair. I just don't see this situation as being a dangerous precedent in this context. If you not in so many words argue that a bunch of your citizens are subhuman, a backlash is inevitable, particularly when it's based on so flimsy a premise. The case for responsible speech goes both ways.
The "insult your boss" example was just a trivial example of how freedom of speech still entails a responsibility for the consequences-- it is not an absolute and inviolate for a variety of good reasons, though a great many commenters here wish it were.