The anti-freedom of speech path would be to ban any pro nazi speech entirely.
Plus, let’s be honest — most of the “consequences” of speech, like cancelling people, are not really targeted at the person being cancelled. They are really happening because people want to suppress speech they don’t like by scaring other people into silence.
Government is not the only source of oppression. We should be very careful about excusing social consequences for people speaking their mind, or we will lose free speech because of a cancel-culture mob mentality rather than because of government oppression. The end result is pretty much the same and we shouldn’t let it happen.
Free speech is not an ideal that we should strive for in itself but shorthand for a principle that helps promote stronger societies that help its members live longer. Any speech that goes against that basic goal is stupid to fight for. Eating is something that is not something we should strive for in itself but shorthand for fulfilling the nutritional needs of the body. Any eating that goes against that basic goal is stupid to promote.
We should strive for free speech even if it hurts people’s feelings, and even if it gives a microphone to crazy people, even Nazis.
The alternative is a world where the government, or a mob, or both, get to dictate what we can say and think. It would also be a world where we cannot point out errors without being shouted down, resulting in things like Soviet science and basic errors of governance being uncorrected until they ruin everything (e.g. the recent history of Sri Lanka). It would be a world where both scientists and critics of science have no ability to deal with pandemics or other disasters outside the bounds set by politicians who have no idea what they are doing.
There was a time when cancel culture was turned against people arguing for gay rights, desegregation, and feminism. That time may come again, quite soon, and people on the left who have recently turned against free speech and created mechanisms to weaken it will reap what they have sown.
Utter nonsense. Would you rather have free speech or live? Only one of these is a primary goal. The other is merely a means to attain the other. Hence, the restrictions on free speech provided by every country's laws.
> There was a time when cancel culture was turned against people arguing for gay rights, desegregation, and feminism. That time may come again, quite soon, and people on the left who have recently turned against free speech and created mechanisms to weaken it will reap what they have sown.
Cancel culture itself is free speech. The right used it to morally bankrupt ends that resulted in people losing their lives.
Any argument you have given so far can also be used by your opponents.
No, I'm not. If some speech serves to cause people to die, that speech is bad and is not worth protecting. Preventing people from dying is the opposite of weaponizing. If my opponents want to prevent me from dying, I won't oppose them in doing so. My opponents and I don't disagree on everything.
If I say I should eat bread but not shit, your argument is that my opponents can now say that I should eat shit but not bread. You're ignoring that only one of these is wrong.
You seem to be missing that cancel culture is itself free speech, so your position contradicts itself.
I’m not sure why you keep going with the weird shit-based analogy.
My argument is simply that if you can control the speech of others, then they can control yours.
Whether some speech is “right” or “wrong” is always going to be up for debate. The result will simply be that anyone in power will ban speech they don’t like.
Getting someone fired, cancelling their appearances at universities and other public events, blacklisting them from academia -- those things are not speech.
None of these are restricting someone's freedom of speech. It's the same badly constructed talking point over and over again.
You might as well also say that jailing people for their speech doesn't infringe on freedom of speech, because that is a consequence of speech they already made. But that's a very narrow (and ahistorical) view of what freedom of speech really means.
We can lean on the Wikipedia definition here: "Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction."
It's the employer who terminates employment, not the people asking the employer to do so. The opponents of the people asking the employer to terminate employment can exercise their free speech to argue for continued employment. That is the only action congruent with free speech absolutism. In this case, it also happens to match what the law protects.