I didn't say that you were wrong, or dismiss your viewpoints. I'm pointing out that there is a broader debate here, which has value but is misunderstood by many. Freedom of speech as a philosophical concept spans wider than its codification in law, and probably requires adaption or extension in response to changing circumstances.
The "twitter mob" argument was really an ancillary point to show where one ends up if enough unpopular opinions are silenced. But it's interesting in itself. I don't think a participant in public debate in the 1700s would have reason to fear a crowd of tens of thousands stapling angry and occasionally violent rebuttals to their front door.
Okay, calling someone a fucking moron is protected speech. It would be problematic to censor it. But there is a problem if a crowd screams at someone who has valid (if controversial) points, if this happens to such a degree that they will self-censor or withdraw from the debate entirely, perhaps (rightfully) fearing for their livelihoods and personal safety. My example was a concrete instance of this.
Solution? Hell if I know. There's certainly a problem; a situation that has negative consequences. There's something to the viewpoint that cancelling someone is approaching an act of violence, where it affects a person's ability to earn a living and survive. But this is obviously not the last or only important point in such a debate. It's something that should be discussed widely.
It certainly appears to me that it is being discussed widely. I see this discussion all the time.
Really you are talking about societal norms. Sometimes I agree with those norms, and sometimes I don’t. I think the norm that gays should be ostracized was wrong, and I’m happy to see how much this is changing. I think the norm that racism shouldn’t be tolerated is right, and I’m happy when it is upheld.
The solution is to not look to the government to solve social issues like this. Governmental policy and law is way too slow, coarse grained, and unwieldy for stuff like this.
The "twitter mob" argument was really an ancillary point to show where one ends up if enough unpopular opinions are silenced. But it's interesting in itself. I don't think a participant in public debate in the 1700s would have reason to fear a crowd of tens of thousands stapling angry and occasionally violent rebuttals to their front door.
Okay, calling someone a fucking moron is protected speech. It would be problematic to censor it. But there is a problem if a crowd screams at someone who has valid (if controversial) points, if this happens to such a degree that they will self-censor or withdraw from the debate entirely, perhaps (rightfully) fearing for their livelihoods and personal safety. My example was a concrete instance of this.
Solution? Hell if I know. There's certainly a problem; a situation that has negative consequences. There's something to the viewpoint that cancelling someone is approaching an act of violence, where it affects a person's ability to earn a living and survive. But this is obviously not the last or only important point in such a debate. It's something that should be discussed widely.