|
philosophy -> RE: No freedom of speech if it pisses someone off. (4/13/2012 4:17:08 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: xssve
But it's not less difficult to argue that consequences of economic sanctions, loss of livelihood, social orstracization, etc., are any less coercive, not quite as final perhaps, but the chilling effect is just as profound and all the more insidious.
...now this is a very fair point and utterly central to the argument we're having.
When do consequences of free speech become coercive and counter productive to free speech?
I'd argue pretty much alongside the SCOTUS on this. If one uses free speech in such a way as to cause harm to people (not annoyance, but actual harm) then the line has been crossed.
So, in my view, free speech is not an absolute right. (In fact, i can think of few rights I'd classify as absolute). It has limits, and those limits are roughly at the point where other peoples rights get effected.
So, did the coach in question cause harm?
Arguably yes. Economic harm, or at least the threat of it, to his employers.
Does applying sanctions to the coach have a pre-emptive coercive effect on other peoples free speech?
Maybe, actually. But not a huge one. Mostly what it does is enforce orthodoxy. In the US generally and Miami in particular, there is a shared perception of what Cuba is. The coach in question cut across that perception and got flak for it.
It is always tricky to swim against the stream. Try running for any political post in the US as a communist. Could one argue that people who don't vote for an avowed communist are curtailing that persons free speech? Could we argue that not getting votes is a consequence of what one has said? And if what one says is free speech, wouldnt failing to vote for someone, on the basis of what they've said, be a coercive consequence?
|
|
|
|
