What if it’s reframed?
If I call my boss a fatty and they fire me that’s ok right? It’s just their feelings and I’m losing my income, but in that case it’s acceptable. Why?
Note that I said "accuse". Maybe you called me a fatty, maybe you didn't.
Note that "get" is too strong. There appear to be people waiting for an excuse to go after "your employer" for pretty much any value of "your employer". I may not even be bothered - someone else may do the "get" even if all I do is mention that you called me fatty/thought that you thought of me as a fatty without any intent that someone do something.
I'm describing cancel culture as it is, which is different from "calling your boss a fatty" (or a Nazi for that matter).
We might well decide that the "right thing" in these situations is different.
Which reminds me - does someone have an obligation to hire me after I call them a fatty?
The “insult my boss” is a good thought experiment because it reveals that motivation. Is it really about “free speech” vs. “feelings”, or is there something else going on?
The boss situation is a lousy experiment because its result tells us nothing about what the result should be in the situation we're discussing. (For one, my boss isn't going to fire me by threatening the business if I call him a fatty.)
For example, it's relatively easy to figure out who the person is behind this account. The mob could decide that I've "done wrong" and go after my income. That's no where near me screaming at my boss that he's a Nazi or a fatty.
FWIW, "free speech" might not be the right hook - toleration might be more accurate. After all, many of the cancelers justify their actions as "we tolerate everything except intolerance."
The answer to "must my boss tolerate me calling him fatty?" is probably different from "should my fellow employees lose their income because A says that I called B 'fatty'?"
And then there's the fact that the cancellers go after everyone who might employ me. My fat boss doesn't have that kind of reach.
I was providing an actual scenario as a basis of comparison. I think concrete examples are more useful here.
If you had to let an employee go and caused even more emotional harm (brought on by their no longer being employed), you wouldn't receive a reprisal.
Why are you pointing out that speech sometimes is reasonable to punish? How does this clarify the question of whether we have become too punitive regarding political and controversial social speech.
What do you mean by “acceptable” here? As in, an average person would consider it fair?