Steve McIntyre wrote: > Do we really have to go through this argument *again*?
I didn't start this discussion. > Freedom of speech does *not* mean freedom from consequences. The point is who decides what the consequences are. That should be up to the legal system, not to some random group of people who gather together and decide to enact summary punishment. Some types of speech are forbidden by law: hate speech, defamatory speech, incitement to violate the law (note that debating whether a law is unjust does NOT equate to inciting people to violate that law). Everything that isn't forbidden is free speech and nobody must be discriminated for voicing their opinions. > If you say unpopular, controversial things then it's entirely > reasonable that people around you may evaluate you based on what > you've said. They may decide that they don't want to listen to you any > more. They may decide that they don't want to work with you any more, > or have you in a position of power in a project. Words have power. If they don't want to listen to me, that doesn't mean I should be forced to be silent. If they don't want to work with me, that doesn't mean I should lose my job, or any position that I may be holding. > Decrying this as a "political correctness storm" is a favourite > argument of the morally bankrupt who want the freedom to spout hate > without being called on it. Spouting hate can come from both camps, and the language of this sentence of yours does seem an example of that, as well as a possible CoC violation, particularly if you meant to imply that I belong to the "morally bankrupt". Gerardo
