What on earth are you talking about? I never said anything about solving this problem with the law.

> Hah, "the general public doesn't care" and yet somehow all the social repercussions depend entirely on the general public caring. How very convenient! And we're supposed to what, just accept Greenwald's definition of what's "unreasonable"? Who made him king?

How does people getting fired "depend entirely on the general public caring"?

> And you seem to not understand (or not care) about people's rights to speak and associate as they please so long as it's not defamatory, as well as denial of agency. Which I find amoral, though sadly I cannot honestly say it's at all "shocking". Your view is well represented throughout human history I'm afraid.

I'm unsure, in your bizarre worldview, how you'd be able to condemn McCarthyism. That was just right-wingers using their speech to convince private citizens and companies to not hire or associate with suspected communists. Just speech, right? Nothing wrong with that.

And because you've made all kinds of bizarre assumptions about my opinions -- I'm not saying, and I never said, that this problem should be solved by the law. It should be solved by socializing children not to be rats. Clearly that approach has failed but maybe we'll get it right for the next generation. Articles like this are certainly helpful when it comes to shaming rats.

Oh, and point me to where this article calls for legal restrictions on speech to solve this problem.

> See, this is literally the opposite of everything I've said! The restrictions aren't legal, I've direct argued against legal restrictions! The restrictions are social, and speech.

You completely misunderstood. I understand that you're arguing against legal restrictions, that's why I said "the only restrictions are legal". And that's also why I called you amoral. My point was that there need to be soft restrictions that aren't legal. People have to be socialized to a moral standard higher than "I didn't break the law".

> Why shouldn't you email the offender's boss? I wouldn't over something like this, but there is perfectly legal speech (like glorifying slavery) that I would consider serious enough to potentially complain about. And what of the BOSS'S agency? Working at a higher level college tech position, for a medium business, a political campaign, and even front desk way way back in the day, I can remember plenty of crackpot messages that came in to me or others. We'd have a good laugh at the sillier ones and chuck 'em. If we just went along with them all that'd be on us, not the nuts who wrote in.

Because emailing someone's boss because you want to get them fired for disagreeing over politics is beneath contempt, it's dishonorable, it's behaving like a rat.

> "Less able to express their views" is doing a lot of work here. Are you asserting that you have a right to take someone else's money or property for your own speech against their will? That they must like you and chat with you or work with you or invite you along to social gatherings or the like no matter what you say? And how would that not be restricting their freedom of speech? I'd call that pretty creepy.

I was asserting that it's ironic to call yourself a free speech absolutist while happily going along with "deplatforming". I was further asserting that "social repercussions" do cover "not being your friend" or "not returning your calls" but don't cover "trying to get you fired from your job".

> You need to get out of your bubble and read some history if you've never so much as heard phrases like "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" before. Both parts of that are important.

I wouldn't even call your terrarium a bubble since you're the only inhabitant. Your social-darwinist interpretation of free speech is foreign to virtually all humans. Oh, and I must be unfamiliar with the second part of that quote that you omitted for some reason: "I disapprove of what you say, and I will attempt to get you fired and ruin your life, but it's okay because you can do the same thing to me, isn't free speech wonderful?"