So let's get down to brass tacks here: do you want to have people shot for thoughts you don't like? Because that's what it means to make something illegal. That's what's ultimately at the root of "law", cold hard power. It can have more or fewer layers of padding around the hard fist, but the fist is always there at the end. Freedom of Speech is about not having hard power directly or indirectly control speech in general unless there is an extreme overriding need and the use is as limited and transient as possible. How the people choose to exercise their speech is up to the private sphere, which can shift and reconsider over time. Because there is nothing better. There is no oracle we can consult. And when force comes into the equation, it's always ended up getting abused. Like democracy itself, "the worst system, except for all the others".

>Greenwald's argument is that the repercussions being discussed are not the result of genuine freedom of association.

Which is complete bullshit unless someone is getting forced. There is nothing "ungenuine" about it, he just doesn't like their choice. Which is his right, but denying their agency is him being an asshole anyway.

>He thinks that there exists a powerful ideological movement in the media that is using its power to get people fired (or banned but at least punished) for reasons that are 1. unreasonable 2. have nothing to do with anything the general public cares about.

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?

>You seem to not understand (or not care) about that latter point and, as a result, I find your worldview shockingly amoral.

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.

>To you, apparently the whole point of discourse is to destroy your ideological opponent in whatever ways are available. The only restrictions are legal.

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 might decline a dinner invitation over something like that but not e-mail the offender's boss.

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.

Fortunately, because we have Freedom of Speech, you and I can in turn be upset over a company going overboard, or someone going after someone in ways we don't approve of. We too can email, expressing support for the person who said "retard", and trying to convince others, and threatening whatever social (including economic) consequences we can muster! And at no point will any of us be shot for it, or have to ask government permission.

>"Social repercussions" is doing a lot of work here. Is it just a coincidence that the "social repercussions" under discussion so often involve the targeted parties being less able to express their views?

"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.

>Also, your creepy use of "social repercussions" is certainly not any part of any defense of Free Speech I've ever heard.

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.