tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post3358192525385265152..comments2024-01-16T05:48:33.523-05:00Comments on Errata Security: In defense of open debateDavid Maynorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09921229607193067441noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-53305609302964969762020-10-15T08:05:19.479-04:002020-10-15T08:05:19.479-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Robert Earlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12578996383186214744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-59983123576983267512020-07-14T22:00:01.472-04:002020-07-14T22:00:01.472-04:00This is an interesting take, and I agree with many...This is an interesting take, and I agree with many of the points you're making here about how modern battle lines have been drawn and the ways that these distinctions have made it difficult to come to a consensus.<br /><br />That said, I have a few pieces of your argument I did not find particularly compelling. In the interest of brevity, I will focus on only one.<br /><br />I think the distinction you are making between "consequences" and "punishment" for speech is somewhat flimsy.<br /><br />If I understand correctly, you write that "[c]onsequences are when people stop listening to you, punishment is when you lose your job." As examples of punishment, you also allude to "blacklist[ing], ... boycott[ing] studios to prevent Gibson movies, ... remov[ing movies] from catalogs". From the wider context, I think you're saying that the analogous actions of segments of the public directed at the NYT / MTV are similarly "punishments" for speech.<br /><br />I think you're trying to draw a line here between different parts of individual's lives (e.g. Mel Gibson's antisemitism, and his artistic work).<br /><br />From my perspective, it is not exactly clear what you expect it to mean for "people stop listening" to an individual.<br /><br />Does it mean that in the future, others should think carefully about providing you financial means to broadcast more (potentially dumb, harmful, and distasteful) speech? Should it trigger a reconsideration about the ways in which bad arguments may have crept into a broader set of work? Would it be reasonable for individuals to avoid directly supporting and associating with people seeking to amplify bad statements?<br /><br />Do individual rights extend to collective actions? I would expect so, since your original definition of natural consequences alludes to "people" (presumably collectively) deciding not to listen.<br /><br />In short, I think that a natural consequence to offensive, poorly considered, and harmful speech is the use of individual freedoms of association, and further speech that unequivocally pushes back. I think you argue as much in saying you're less likely to watch a Mel Gibson movie. Others are entitled to the same discretion, individually and collectively.<br /><br />Personally, I am inclined to think that the sort of "punishments" you allude to do not much resemble illegal and violent attacks on journalists ala Hebdo. To the contrary, they are very lawful exercises of peaceful free association.Ninjinuityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02542222531993130192noreply@blogger.com