He persuasively advocates that the line shouldn't be drawn based on the acceptability or reasonability of the opinion, but on whether the behavior is mere communication (i.e. leaflets, speeches, opinions, blogs, TV ads) or actual action. In particular, when the causal influence of the alleged wrong doing propagates through the minds of voting citizens, this is not something that ought to be retaliated against (by the government or by individuals).
Incidentally, Mills strongly argues that speech should be protected even under the assumption that it is wrong and that its suppression would not have slippery slope effects. If you can't see why what would make sense, I encourage you to read him.
For more on arguments like Mills, as well as some modern push-back grounded in the principle of offense, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Eich's right to say what he wants remains intact. Nobody has attacked it, and it has not been eroded in any way. What he does not have is 'a right to not have people respond to his speech with speech of their own'. In fact, any speech in response to Eich's speech is just as protected as his speech.
If this were not the case, then conversation/debate would not be possible.
In other countries with hate speech legislation, Eich's right to speak out against civil liberties might be restricted. However this is not the case in America, he is free to say whatever he pleases (although his actions are restricted, and if he commits an illegal action his (otherwise legal) speech may be used to make the case that his action was a hate crime).
jessriedel clearly says that free speech should extend beyond the law to include social norms:
"In particular, when the causal influence of the alleged wrong doing propagates through the minds of voting citizens, this is not something that ought to be retaliated against (by the government or by individuals)."
...this is really the crux of the debate. Many of those upset about the Eich situation still think it should be legal to fire Eich for his speech but it should not be socially acceptable.
In other words, many people believe what happened to Eich was unethical, however legal.
In other words, many people believe what happened to Eich was unethical, however legal.
Presumably from your description those people believe he was fired. He was not. He clearly stated that he had resigned; his choice, his action.
I am unsure whether people so often assume he was fired because that's what fits the narrative they want to push (bullying intolerant liberal witch-hunting mob action... choose from any of the above, they've all been used), or because it's next to impossible to argue that he was wronged if he resigned.
(the difficulty being that making someone feel unwelcome through overwhelming social pressure can't be labeled wrong in the "Eich was wronged" worldview, because then the overwhelming unwelcoming social pressure of Proposition 8 comes into play as a "well, he did wrong")
> (the difficulty being that making someone feel unwelcome through overwhelming social pressure can't be labeled wrong in the "Eich was wronged" worldview, because then the overwhelming unwelcoming social pressure of Proposition 8 comes into play as a "well, he did wrong")
And why can't they both be wrong? Just because you did something unethical, doesn't mean I get to do something unethical to you.
And the idea that it is 'next to impossible to argue' that someone was wronged if they resigned is ridiculous. A trivial example is if an employee resigns due to sexual harassment in the workplace. They chose to resign right? Therefore couldn't have been wronged?
The general argument I've seen has been that Proposition 8 was "just an opinion" or "just freedom of speech", while the people speaking out against Brendan were "a lynch mob", on a "witch hunt", an example of "lefty liberal intolerance", etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
So the people making the argument typically need to have a position where Brendan supporting Prop 8 was not bad, but Brendan being called out/pressured to step down over it was bad, because for some reason they need him to be a victim of "bullies" in order for their worldview to work.
> The general argument I've seen has been that Proposition 8 was "just an opinion" or "just freedom of speech"
> need to have a position where Brendan supporting Prop 8 was not bad
The second statement _absolutely_ does not follow from the first. You can consider Prop 8 immoral and wrong, and still want it protected by freedom of speech.
And calling the internet's behavior "a lynch mob" or a "witch hunt" is not interfering with anyone's freedom of speech, so you don't have to worry about that.
The second statement _absolutely_ does not follow from the first.
You very obviously have not been following any of the backlash to the backlash. Read any of the "witch hunt" articles to see plenty of people whose position is that Brendan did nothing wrong, but the people who condemned him did.
What humanrebar said. The importance of free speech goes beyond just restrictions on the government. If that's not intuitive to you, I highly recommend Mills.
http://www.bartleby.com/130/
He persuasively advocates that the line shouldn't be drawn based on the acceptability or reasonability of the opinion, but on whether the behavior is mere communication (i.e. leaflets, speeches, opinions, blogs, TV ads) or actual action. In particular, when the causal influence of the alleged wrong doing propagates through the minds of voting citizens, this is not something that ought to be retaliated against (by the government or by individuals).
Incidentally, Mills strongly argues that speech should be protected even under the assumption that it is wrong and that its suppression would not have slippery slope effects. If you can't see why what would make sense, I encourage you to read him.
For more on arguments like Mills, as well as some modern push-back grounded in the principle of offense, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/