You have the right to say whatever you want (within the bounds of the law- not inciting violence for instance)
You still have to deal with and be accountable for the consequences of what you say.
Freedom of speech is not a pass to say what you want without repercussions. If you make homophobic, and-mask comments, you have to own those and be willing to deal with how others respond to those comments (such as your employer or media outlet). Cancel culture isn't the end of free speech, it's just the bluntest way
Repercussions from whom? 1st amendment freedom of speech means that the government cannot limit your speech (presumably that would include protection from being fired for what you say outside work as an employee of the government). But institutions like universities also declare something closely allied, "academic freedom", and that's supposed to mean that the institution will not limit your scholarly inquiry and speech. So yes, even an un-tenured faculty member or student should be safe from being removed for saying repellent things as long as it's done in an academic way. When any institution proclaims freedom of speech, they (ought to) make the implicit promise that they will not use any of their powers (censure,firing,etc.) to limit freedom of speech, and NOT merely acknowledge that the government won't throw you in jail or shut you down. The reality often differs from this, and it's very disappointing.
To support freedom of speech in a given context goes beyond the 1st amendment. It means a commitment to solve conflict through the exercise of speech, not play non-speech tactics by using your authority or influence to fire/cancel/etc. So if you support someone being fired for saying something, then you betray a lack of support for open dialogue, that you would rather silence / shut down / financially disadvantage / etc. someone than actually engaging, through your own speech, whatever it is that they're saying. One is under no obligation to support freedom of speech in all contexts, of course. For example, if my friend is grieving, I don't support the (beyond 1st amendment) freedom of speech of others to say things that might offend that person; I freely admit that. But there is a cost to limiting speech -- that people will increasingly find temporarily convenient ways other than speech to address their conflicts, that can only in the long term lead to escalation. They best way for a pluralistic society is to be tolerant and try to persuade. The alternative is not pretty.
So if you support someone being fired for saying something, then you betray a lack of support for open dialogue,
Free speech doesn't require open dialogue. It protects both speech and the right to not speak.
The First Amendment equally protects the right of free association with others (which includes the right to refuse to associate with others). (There are minor limits on this such as barring racial discrimination in commerce)
So if you say something I find offensive, I'm free to react to that by refusing to speak to you and by refusing to even be anywhere together with you, and this fits very nicely in the spirit of
The First Amendment needs to be updated. What good is freedom of speech when you can only say what is approved by the party line? Yes, repercussions will not come from the government, they will come from the organized social media mob. Very capable of impacting your life in a very negative way.
Free speech chiefly starts with not having prior restraint. Whatever you want to say, you can probably just go ahead and say it. If it's somehow unlawful, at least you have a chance to say it first.
This is followed closely by the government generally not being allowed to punish you or silence you after the fact for what you said.
But you can still royally fuck up your reputation; say the wrong thing and people will dislike you. They're free to dislike you. They're free to refuse to listen to you, and to
You assume you can have a fair debate over twitter or facebook. I would argue that such a thing highly unlikely. You want a proper debate you cite sources and evidence. You use logic and question each other's assumptions. It takes work and high informational content to persuade another person. It's just not going to happen at less than 200 characters.
The promise of the Internet was supposed to be the freedom to exchange information. Instead information was commoditized and turned into short bytes of unhealt
> 1st amendment freedom of speech means that the government cannot limit your speech (presumably that would include protection from being fired for what you say outside work as an employee of the government).
Nope. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.".
You are free to expr
Machines take me by surprise with great frequency.
- Alan Turing
Misunderstanding freedom of speech/cancel culture (Score:5, Insightful)
You have the right to say whatever you want (within the bounds of the law- not inciting violence for instance)
You still have to deal with and be accountable for the consequences of what you say.
Freedom of speech is not a pass to say what you want without repercussions. If you make homophobic, and-mask comments, you have to own those and be willing to deal with how others respond to those comments (such as your employer or media outlet). Cancel culture isn't the end of free speech, it's just the bluntest way
Re:Misunderstanding freedom of speech/cancel cultu (Score:5, Insightful)
Repercussions from whom? 1st amendment freedom of speech means that the government cannot limit your speech (presumably that would include protection from being fired for what you say outside work as an employee of the government). But institutions like universities also declare something closely allied, "academic freedom", and that's supposed to mean that the institution will not limit your scholarly inquiry and speech. So yes, even an un-tenured faculty member or student should be safe from being removed for saying repellent things as long as it's done in an academic way. When any institution proclaims freedom of speech, they (ought to) make the implicit promise that they will not use any of their powers (censure,firing,etc.) to limit freedom of speech, and NOT merely acknowledge that the government won't throw you in jail or shut you down. The reality often differs from this, and it's very disappointing.
To support freedom of speech in a given context goes beyond the 1st amendment. It means a commitment to solve conflict through the exercise of speech, not play non-speech tactics by using your authority or influence to fire/cancel/etc. So if you support someone being fired for saying something, then you betray a lack of support for open dialogue, that you would rather silence / shut down / financially disadvantage / etc. someone than actually engaging, through your own speech, whatever it is that they're saying. One is under no obligation to support freedom of speech in all contexts, of course. For example, if my friend is grieving, I don't support the (beyond 1st amendment) freedom of speech of others to say things that might offend that person; I freely admit that. But there is a cost to limiting speech -- that people will increasingly find temporarily convenient ways other than speech to address their conflicts, that can only in the long term lead to escalation. They best way for a pluralistic society is to be tolerant and try to persuade. The alternative is not pretty.
Re: (Score:3)
So if you support someone being fired for saying something, then you betray a lack of support for open dialogue,
Free speech doesn't require open dialogue. It protects both speech and the right to not speak.
The First Amendment equally protects the right of free association with others (which includes the right to refuse to associate with others). (There are minor limits on this such as barring racial discrimination in commerce)
So if you say something I find offensive, I'm free to react to that by refusing to speak to you and by refusing to even be anywhere together with you, and this fits very nicely in the spirit of
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech chiefly starts with not having prior restraint. Whatever you want to say, you can probably just go ahead and say it. If it's somehow unlawful, at least you have a chance to say it first.
This is followed closely by the government generally not being allowed to punish you or silence you after the fact for what you said.
But you can still royally fuck up your reputation; say the wrong thing and people will dislike you. They're free to dislike you. They're free to refuse to listen to you, and to
Re: (Score:2)
You assume you can have a fair debate over twitter or facebook. I would argue that such a thing highly unlikely. You want a proper debate you cite sources and evidence. You use logic and question each other's assumptions. It takes work and high informational content to persuade another person. It's just not going to happen at less than 200 characters.
The promise of the Internet was supposed to be the freedom to exchange information. Instead information was commoditized and turned into short bytes of unhealt
Re: (Score:1)
> 1st amendment freedom of speech means that the government cannot limit your speech (presumably that would include protection from being fired for what you say outside work as an employee of the government).
Nope. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.".
You are free to expr