Being actually supportive of free speech requires some level of tolerance for things that you disagree with. It can't possibly work if people with unpopular opinions are are cancelled (i.e. blacklisted, fired, castigated, sanctioned). If the government did these things to people with unpopular opinions that would clearly be anti-free-speech, right? Why is it different when it's done by a mob instead?
> Why is it different when it's done by a mob instead?
Because the "mob" isn't firing people, people in positions of power are doing that. Ordinary folks are powerless outside of their voice. So, they're complaining, sending messages, signing petitions, taking a stance, etc. and social media now lets their voices be heard.
You don't have to agree with it, but to describe folks you don't agree with as a "mob", or claim that they're using "groupthink", etc. seems like you might be quickly dismissing them.
Political parties engage in groupthink and flood the news and social media with their viewpoints. Are they "mobs"? They try to get their opponents fired and blacklisted.
I totally understand being against someone being fired. But being against a group of people who are outraged and speaking their minds seems anti-Free speech to me. It's the "cancel bosses" that we should be focused on, who are actually affecting people's lives, not ordinary people that are exercising their rights to free speech.
No? I mean, John Stuart Mills argues that the only tolerance needed is for those things which "tend to his improvement", so long as it isn't just for the sake of punishment. I'll quote his "On Liberty":
"We have a right, also, in various ways, to act upon our unfavourable opinion of any one, not to the oppression of his individuality, but in the exercise of ours. We are not bound, for example, to seek his society; we have a right to avoid it (though not to parade the avoidance), for we have a right to choose the society most acceptable to us. We have a right, and it may be our duty, to caution others against him, if we think his example or conversation likely to have a pernicious effect on those with whom he associates. We may give others a preference over him in optional good offices, except those which tend to his improvement. In these various modes a person may suffer very severe penalties at the hands of others, for faults which directly concern only himself; but he suffers these penalties only in so far as they are the natural, and, as it were, the spontaneous consequences of the faults themselves, not because they are purposely inflicted on him for the sake of punishment."
It therefore seems like the calls against so-called 'cancel culture' are mostly calls to prevent people from exercising their liberty.
Blacklisting, being fired, castigation, and sanction as a result of unpopular opinions has been a deeply embedded part of American culture since its founding. It seems unreasonable to characterize them as a distinct "cancel culture".
The government has the monopoly on the use of force. Its citizens do not. People have liberty. Government does not. People have the right of free association. Government does not. So there's a few big differences there.
And, what's this about a "mob"?
If I decide to castigate someone whose opinions I find unfavourable, is that not fine? If not, why not?
If many people decide to castigate someone for those same unfavourable opinions, is that also not fine? And if not, why not?
Are those actions somehow a "mob" because there are many?
If so, that's a marvelous escape clause for the powerful. The handful of mine owners, working together to blacklist union organizers, are too small to be a mob, so therefore their blacklist isn't part of cancel culture, yes?
> It can't possibly work if people with unpopular opinions are are cancelled (i.e. blacklisted, fired, castigated, sanctioned)
What would it mean for JK Rowling to be cancelled? Legitimately an honest question: she's a billionaire backed by a media empire. What do you think would have to happen before she could be considered "cancelled"?
The government does these sorts of things to people all the time without falling foul of the first amendment. They can't take away your right to say something but they absolutely do limit where you can say them. Trump has fired tons of people for saying stuff he doesn't like. Democratic adminstrations have too.
