Getting someone fired for saying shit you find deeply offensive is not a betrayal of the principle of Freedom of Speech.
Something that everyone needs to keep in mind is the first amendment is a legal concept in place to stop THE GOVERNMENT from restricting speech, meaning they can't put you in jail for speech. Regular citizens, on the other hand, also have the right of free association, meaning they can remove people from their property for any reason, including speech. A company has every right to fire someone for bringing them bad PR. Otherwise youd go into a store and the cashier could tell every customer to eat shit and they wouldn't be able to fire them, which is not a world anyone wants.
You’re overthinking it. Holding someone to their standards is not the same as making them your standards. That’s all this is at the end of the day. We warned them, pleaded with them, and they laughed and called “learn to code” violent rhetoric.
I mean now it's the time to think about it before anyone does anything too rash.
Too rash is giving them what they want, which is a violent outburst they can point at, what they don’t want currently is getting the cancel culture treatment over their own violent rhetoric 4 months before elections. They are self imploding and it shows. Let them hang themselves, just make sure the noose is properly fitted for them.
The 1st Amendment also protects freedom of association. Which means not wanting to be associated with idiots is a 1st Amendment right as well.
Unfortunately, that part of the right has been gutted over the years.
The problem with cancel culture isn't when two parties don't want to be associated. It's when an outside force causes that state by interference. "Fire them or else," is issue. And it's a moral issue, not a legal one.
Freedom of association has been dead since the civil rights acts.
Understandably, making actionable threats or spreading lies/slander that can be proven false don't fall under freedom of speech, as in one could face legal consequences for it. Personally, I'm fine with people getting fired for making their workplaces look bad, if their words are attached to their public name. Hunting down anons online and doxxxing is a different story.
What I'm seeing from others is that there's this fear, or concern, somehow that this will turn into something worse. There's a misconception that using their tactics against them will lead us to behaving as bad or worse, even once they're no longer in power. Rational people won't go that far, but it doesn't help that some talk as though going down into the pit with them is the permanent way forward.
Meh, I disagree. The whole "oh it's only about stopping the government" thing is a cop out. Yes that's legally the function of the first amendment but that's separate and distinct from the principle of freedom of speech. So it comes down to whether you support freedom of speech or if you support the first amendment.
I won't deny the practical political gains to be had by ousting lefties who take off their masks but I'm not ready to cheer for the standard that's being created among the ashes of a principle I hold to be important.
So what does Freedom of Speech mean to you as a principle? Should I be allowed to post scat porn on this sub? Should an employee of a store be allowed to tell people they hate them enough that people stop going to that store?
Of course not, it's an ideal to strive for, not a concrete thing that can actually be achieved. People should be able to speak openly without retaliation, the retaliation being reserved instead for their actions. However this only works when you have a population of sufficient moral quality, which we no longer have. Thus it is a conundrum.
I'm an idealist at heart, but I'm not stupid enough to ignore the ugly reality and the required curtailment that lays before us. I simply weep for the loss of something good that could have been maintained but wasn't.