"However, your idea that free speech has no protection from societal consequences is not fully thought through. If society is free to create consequences as long as its not government doing it then it should be free to ostracise people who think differently. That would make it acceptable to discriminate against those who promote equal rights for gays or atheists or blacks because it's not the government doing it. But we surely all agree that that sort of discrimination is bad even if it's not the government doing it."
My idea that free speech has no protection from societal consequences is reality. That is how our system works, and it is the only realistic way for our system to work. The only alternative would be to enforce some kind of limitation on criticism of other people's speech.
Example #1
(1) Neo Nazi A goosesteps around town wearing an SS uniform and swastikas, shouts at everyone who sees him that Jews are subhuman. Throws up Nazi salutes at every opportunity.
(2) WacDonalds realizes that Neo Nazi A is a manager of their restaurant, which employs and serves Jews, as well as various other minorities.
(3) WacDonalds fires Neo Nazi A because he is a Nazi.
(4) Neo Nazi A sues WacDonalds and wins millions of dollars, forces them to re-hire him as manager.
(5) Jewish people stop going to WacDonalds and organize protests and boycotts.
(6) WacDonalds sues Jewish people for boycotting them and wins millions of dollars, forces them to continue purchasing WacDonalds.
No bueno.
Example #2
(1) KKK member suddenly decides he will henceforth walk around town in a full Klan regalia, including hood, and carrying burning crosses through black neighborhoods.
(2) People who used to be friends with KKK member realize how bad he is and decide they don't want to have anything to do with him anymore. He is no longer invited to parties and social gatherings.
(3) KKK member sues his former friends for refusing to allow him to join their parties and social gatherings, wins millions of dollars from them and forces them to re-invite him to their gatherings.
(4) Friend A now has no choice but to allow KKK member to attend gatherings at his house, under compulsion from government authorities. One night KKK member is seen walking out of Friend A's house wearing full klan regalia and shouting "Death to Blacks!" This is witnessed by Executive Z, a potential client to Friend A's widget producing company who is black.
(5) Executive Z tells Friend A he doesn't want to buy widgets from him now, because he saw KKK member walking out of his house shouting "death to blacks."
(6) Friend A sues Executive Z, wins millions of dollars and forces Executive Z to buy his widgets.
I could come up with countless similar examples. This is why free speech protection is limited to government actions, aside from obvious moral reasons. Enforcement of free speech means lawsuits, monetary damages and injunctions. It is practical to enforce against the government. It is not practical to use that kind of enforcement against citizens.
"However, your idea that free speech has no protection from societal consequences is not fully thought through. If society is free to create consequences as long as its not government doing it then it should be free to ostracise people who think differently. That would make it acceptable to discriminate against those who promote equal rights for gays or atheists or blacks because it's not the government doing it. But we surely all agree that that sort of discrimination is bad even if it's not the government doing it."
My idea that free speech has no protection from societal consequences is reality. That is how our system works, and it is the only realistic way for our system to work. The only alternative would be to enforce some kind of limitation on criticism of other people's speech.
Example #1
(1) Neo Nazi A goosesteps around town wearing an SS uniform and swastikas, shouts at everyone who sees him that Jews are subhuman. Throws up Nazi salutes at every opportunity.
(2) WacDonalds realizes that Neo Nazi A is a manager of their restaurant, which employs and serves Jews, as well as various other minorities.
(3) WacDonalds fires Neo Nazi A because he is a Nazi.
(4) Neo Nazi A sues WacDonalds and wins millions of dollars, forces them to re-hire him as manager.
(5) Jewish people stop going to WacDonalds and organize protests and boycotts.
(6) WacDonalds sues Jewish people for boycotting them and wins millions of dollars, forces them to continue purchasing WacDonalds.
No bueno.
Example #2
(1) KKK member suddenly decides he will henceforth walk around town in a full Klan regalia, including hood, and carrying burning crosses through black neighborhoods.
(2) People who used to be friends with KKK member realize how bad he is and decide they don't want to have anything to do with him anymore. He is no longer invited to parties and social gatherings.
(3) KKK member sues his former friends for refusing to allow him to join their parties and social gatherings, wins millions of dollars from them and forces them to re-invite him to their gatherings.
(4) Friend A now has no choice but to allow KKK member to attend gatherings at his house, under compulsion from government authorities. One night KKK member is seen walking out of Friend A's house wearing full klan regalia and shouting "Death to Blacks!" This is witnessed by Executive Z, a potential client to Friend A's widget producing company who is black.
(5) Executive Z tells Friend A he doesn't want to buy widgets from him now, because he saw KKK member walking out of his house shouting "death to blacks."
(6) Friend A sues Executive Z, wins millions of dollars and forces Executive Z to buy his widgets.
I could come up with countless similar examples. This is why free speech protection is limited to government actions, aside from obvious moral reasons. Enforcement of free speech means lawsuits, monetary damages and injunctions. It is practical to enforce against the government. It is not practical to use that kind of enforcement against citizens.