KiwiFarms was freedom of speech, vile as they were, and I believe they got what they deserved. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, nor does it guarantee a platform.
To have their freedom of speech stifled? Fairly ironic considering your comment:
> So you don't believe in free speech, you just believe in freedom for the speech you agree with.
(Yes, yes, I'm aware they weren't arrested - they were just banned off the internet. Legally speaking, you're in the right.)
Anyways, yes, freedom of speech allows cancel culture to exist. Your argument seems to be along the lines of "whatever happens, happens" - as in, majority is right; if people decide to cancel you, you probably deserved it, and your free speech wasn't stifled. And it wasn't - US-legally speaking.
But I disagree with that notion, considering how cancel culture can cause damage comparable to being arrested. But that's just my opinion, eh?
Yes, I disagree with the publishing of speech that includes harassment, doxxing and driving people to suicide out of prejudice and hatred, and I believe Kiwifarms was doing real and legitimate harm, and that businesses and society have the right to disassociate from them. I'm not a free speech absolutist, you caught me.
>Your argument seems to be along the lines of "whatever happens, happens" - as in, majority is right; if people decide to cancel you, you probably deserved it, and your free speech wasn't stifled. And it wasn't - US-legally speaking.
No, that isn't actually my argument at all. My argument is that society has to have limits to what it tolerates otherwise the intolerant inevitably take over, and that it's legitimate for the people (less so government) to limit freedom of speech in some cases, if only by choosing not to associate with it. Can this possibly be used for evil? Yes - one could (and people have, ad nauseum) argue the same principle applies to society limiting things like feminist, civil rights and pro LGBT speech. Is it, in all cases, an unqualified evil? No.
One cannot apply universal moral qualifiers to freedoms. Consequences can be justified in some cases and unjustified in others. Freedoms can do good in some contexts, and harm in others. "Cancel culture" isn't always simply a frothing angry mob, and speech rejected by society isn't always uncomfortable truth the system is too afraid to hear. Sometimes you're just an asshole and people show you the door. You seem to think that's a crime, but it's just life.
"But who gets to decide what speech is harmful and what is good?" I can hear you typing, because this site is hell and we're cursed to reiterate the same futile conversation over and over again until the end of time, and the answer is "everyone." I have my personal beliefs, you have yours. My culture has its beliefs, yours has its own. The law proscribes limits, as do private platforms. The law can be just, and the law can be unjust. Platforms may be biased and inconsistent. Yes, that is messy, and imperfect, and subjective, and prone to error and controversy, and we will probably never agree on where the lines should be placed, but at the end of the day we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
> Yes, I disagree with the publishing of speech that includes harassment, doxxing and driving people to suicide out of prejudice and hatred
Isn't this exactly what cancel culture does?
> "But who gets to decide what speech is harmful and what is good?" I can hear you typing, because this site is hell and we're cursed to reiterate the same futile conversation over and over again until the end of time, and the answer is "everyone."
So - again - you believe that the majority is always right?
