A. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.
B. Just because you CAN say anything you want doesn't mean you SHOULD. Part of living in society is acting... civilized.
Suggesting you should treat others with respect is now equated with hating freedom of speech? I guess our country really is in trouble...
This is not a freedom of speech issue, it's a "CEOs shouldn't be idiots" issue.
But freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech.
Like people judging what you say.
I'm a free speech absolutionist, but I still think neo Nazis are assholes. I think they should be allowed to say it (absent violence), but anyone who chooses to say it is going to drastically change the way I think of them.
Why do people always say this? Yes, it’s true - and it’s also just flexing your power and ability to crush any speech you deem should have “consequences”.
Free speech advocates are trying to push for a consistent, fairly applied position (which is very noble but imo untenable - I’m not a free speech advocate) and often met with a response that’s essentially “you have no power and I do, so if I dislike what you’re saying I’m going to crush you”.
It's debatable.
Imminent exhortations of others to break the law should be illegal.
Past that, it's a slippery slope to pre-arresting people for thought crime.
As abhorrent as some of the language is, it seems... dicey... if the US had simply banned gangster rap, NWA, fuck-the-police style music. And it's a tenuous line from threat to actual violence.
Which is why "credible" is usually the standard for charging. I.e. did you make a threat and take actions to realize the threat?
We’ve all said things we aren’t proud of in the heat of the moment, especially under the influence of mind altering substances. And perhaps he was making an (albeit poor taste) joke? We’ve become far too sensitive these days.
Individuals judging you and making personal decisions on how to relate to you?
Or society making decisions to withdraw necessary services?
This is where firmly distinguishing between (individual freedom to associate / decide) and (social responsibility to deliver a necessary service) needs more clarity.
Should I be allowed to picket on public property in front of someone's house I disagree with? Or refuse to provide a service to them because I don't like them? IMHO, probably.
Should the city be allowed to turn off their electricity and water? IMHO, probably not.
Should VISA and Twitter be allowed to ban them? ... oof. That's a toughy.
However, just because it's narrowly legal to say something doesn't mean it's a good idea; this kind of thing does tremendous self harm to the speaker's public reputation.
Such responsibilities at some point seem an inherent consequence of running an economy where (1) companies are allowed to grow as big as they want & (2) "social" functions (i.e. services to all) are sometimes only provided by private parties (there is no government/public alternative).
* Leaving aside the protected-classes argument
I'm a socialist that thinks that companies should be transitioned into public ownership once they grow big enough.
It fixes the issue you describe in addition to the myriad of other issues associated with ever-increasing privatizion of what should be the commons.
I don't see this in practice. These "free speech advocates" really just want their speech to be mainstream and for everyone else to go away. See Elon and his banning of pro-Palestinian or leftist voices.
And I really agree that the crux is "big enough" -- at some point, a phase change happens and regulation for social good needs to change too ('too big to be free'?).
We could pro/con public vs private-but-regulated management, but that's a dead horse and they're both valid options.