Free speech used to mean the right to say anything without persecution. Does it now mean the right to have ones opinion be actively globally distributed by a third party?
This is very much about fighting two viruses: one biological and the other one informational. We agree to limit contacts between people to stop the one but do not accept the same method to stop the other. Why? In both cases it is vital to ensure the measures to not cross certain boundaries and are rolled back.
> Free speech used to mean the right to say anything without persecution
Free speech used to be more of an ubiquitous social courtesy like that, yes.
However, that courtesy is rapidly disappearing in our society and free speech is being distilled down to its legal core which is: "you won't go to jail if you say something unpopular"
Everything else is on the table including losing your job, being boycotted, being hounded on social media, and otherwise ruining your life.
I personally like society better when free speech is a social courtesy extended to everyone by everyone, but... society's values change, and right now "harm reduction" is king.
> On 2 August 1775 a crowd of Sons of Liberty confronted him at his house. Brown requested the liberty to hold his own opinions, saying that he could "never enter into an Engagement to take up arms against the Country which gave him being", and finally met their demands with pistol and sword. Taken prisoner with a fractured skull, he was tied to a tree where he was roasted by fire, scalped, tarred, and feathered. This mistreatment resulted in the loss of two toes and lifelong headaches.
> Despite Robert's importance in Rehoboth community, he began to have problems with his fellow townsmen. On June 6, 1654, he was told to move his family out of the Plymouth Colony for allowing Abner Ordway and family, "persons of evil fame", to live in his home. The practice of banishing a family from the colony was known as a "Warning Out Notice."
Black people got lynched for using their right to free speech for much of this country's history. People who piss off their communities have been banished or exiled or worse for millennia. Our close cousins in the animal kingdom do the same thing; if you're a dick, you're either the new leader or you're out of the group.
This topic is frequently the one with the most hyperbolic revisionist statements, and I'm glad you point out the obvious to someone here. There's a near infinite list of things that would have gotten you in trouble socially if it got out during any time after WW2 to the late 90s.
The hand wringing about boycotts seems a little humorous. A few decades ago wasn’t the GOP the ones telling us if we didn’t like something, instead of regulating it we should vote with our wallets?
> Free speech used to mean the right to say anything without persecution.
It never meant that. People have always been similarly free to say "that guy is a dick, we shouldn't invite him to our get togethers" based on your free speech.
I think you’re saying exactly what OP was implying. Persecution as in legal consequences. “You can say whatever you want, but we’re going to ask you to leave our private establishment”.
It's entirely legal - and often appropriate - for someone with shitty views to be persecuted. People who march in neo-Nazi rallies with swastikas should see non-governmental consequences for their actions.
>It's entirely legal - and often appropriate - for someone with shitty views to be persecuted. People who march in neo-Nazi rallies with swastikas should see non-governmental consequences for their actions.
Who decides what counts as shitty views? Is it decided solely based off your political preference? How do you feel about people who march in pro-socialim rallies facing see non-governmental consequences for their actions, during the mccarthy era?
Ostracizing and later persecuting Jews was supported by large parts of the population in 1930's Germany and Eastern Europe. According to your logic, that made it OK too then?
> I heard anti-communism was pretty popular back in the day. Does that mean such actions should be endorsed/allowed?
Sure, why not? If you (or even your entire neighborhood) don't want to have a garden party with an open communist, that's your right. I similarly have the right to say "you're a dick for doing that". If I'm a civil rights activist, I have a right to endorse the Montgomery bus boycott, too.
> So your only objection to that was the government interventions?
With a fairly wide definition of "government interventions", yes. The Comics Code is something I'd consider intervention; "we'll self-regulate under threat of external regulation" is something I consider government intervention and a First Amendment violation in this case. The same for McCarthy's driving a fellow senator to suicide via abuse of power (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_C._Hunt).
I agree the general meaning would be free to say and do anything, however in reality free speech is freedom of speech from the government. Not individuals or private entities. What is common in law is the idea of the market place of ideas. This is generally what free speech to the average American is. We are free to spread information whether right or wrong in order for others to comment and critique and to grow as citizens. I think it's a horribly slippery slope to ban one group from speaking. You can't have an active conversation about a topic without allowing someone to talk. Their decision is sidestepping the root cause and is treating the symptom which is algorithms optimized for engagement. Misinformation and hysteria is what drives engagement.
People never say what they mean. Just say: I am comfortable with Big Tech having the right to pick and choose which opinions are valid and I don't think it will backfire in any way that upholds the exploitation of the oppressed.
Or one could say: Though I was alive through the War on Terror, I don't think giving exceptions to restrictions meant to protect individuals and peoples from extreme concentrations of global powers will tend to go wrong. Those in power will only use the new powers in the cases that I agree with, and not go further.
This is very much about fighting two viruses: one biological and the other one informational. We agree to limit contacts between people to stop the one but do not accept the same method to stop the other. Why? In both cases it is vital to ensure the measures to not cross certain boundaries and are rolled back.