Why? "Active moderation against racism, sexism and transphobia" is, indeed, just basic human decency.
And people keep saying, over and over and over, that doing this is against "freedom of speech".
And people keep saying, over and over and over, that doing this is against "freedom of speech".
If you go by that definition then there is no country on Earth that has freedom of speech.
And that's a good thing because that definition is completely and utterly insane; Absolute freedom of speech would be a catastrophe.
To be clear, it is freedom to be a bigot, or at least to say bigoted things, just not freedom to have anyone else listen to those things (or, as hopefully goes without saying, for any action based on those bigoted things that goes beyond words).
This implies freedom to remember you say bigoted things and proactively avoid you.
Certainly. Freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences, as they say.
― Idi Amin
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9082497-there-is-freedom-of...
Since you refer to them as "my beliefs", I assume that yours are different. With no sarcasm, what are your beliefs? If you argue against the claim that freedom of speech does not entail freedom from consequences, is your position that freedom of speech should come with freedom from consequences? Surely it's not hard to imagine how that, too, can be a dangerous position to take.
Freedom of speech is freedom from consequences:
- of government reprisals
- of corporate reprisals
- of criminal reprisals
- of employment risks
- of relationship risks.
Pick and choose which matter to you. To me, freedom of speech applies to all, but other rights such as freedom of association sometimes override it. (And sometimes not.)
I don't think people generally want a lack of response to their speech (if they did, they're saying nothing... Just making babbling noises best ignored). People want freedom from negative consequences. In short, people want to eat their cake and have their cake.
This is why every country ends up with laws that carve out some spectrum of consequences as inappropriate, but those laws are not all-encompassing... It is functionally impossible to eliminate all the consequences you've listed from the table while still giving listeners freedom to be their own independent agents and modify their behavior in reaction to speech. In particular, the last category you listed is a huge infringement on personal liberty of generally applied... I assume you don't expect a person in a committed relationship, hearing their partner say "I hate everything about my partner and I wish we'd never met," to not modify or end the relationship? Any legal infringement on their right to do so is an obvious curtailment of their rights.
In short, sometimes freedom of speech and freedom of association collide. One is a freedom of the speaker, the other freedom of the listener.
Wait, seriously? If I choose whether to have a relationship with someone based on the things they say, then you regard that as an infringement on their freedom of speech? You do later say:
> … other rights such as freedom of association sometimes override it. (And sometimes not.)
… but I don't really understand this as a statement of position. It seems to be saying that freedom of speech should not have consequences, except when it does, except when it doesn't, and I wind up not really sure what position is being espoused.
"If you're an asshole, I won't broadcast your stuff."
People are still free to be assholes, but the platform is free to not associate themselves with the assholes.
Very simple.