> you really don't have freedom of speech when you can get mugged by being obnoxious online
If you published something similarly obnoxious in a newspaper before the Internet, I'm sure you'd get a similarly angry response from some people, and quite possibly have someone harass you in person if they knew where to find you.
If you stood on top of a soap box and shouted offensive crap at the public, you might have stuff thrown at you.
The only things that have changed - it's easier to publish things online, you're publishing for a global audience rather than a national or a local one, it's easier to find other people who find those publications obnoxious online, and it's a two-way medium rather than the traditional one-way medium of newspapers.
Basically, the masses finally have a voice. If that's a problem, perhaps free speech has never actually had a chance of working?
You're missing a crucial point: whatever an average person does lasts forever. It used to be that you had to be somebody notable before this happened, which meant you had a recompense -- you were already famous for some reason. Now, the average shit you might say at the bar to your friends can mark you for all eternity. That's something unheralded in the history of communication, and it's horrifying.
Exactly. And if you were famous and got tarred one had the option of moving. It wasn't a good option as that typically meant starting from scratch --but it was there. You could start a new life.
Perhaps the so called right to be forgotten deserves serious consideration at least for some kinds of instances. Say, you can have indiscretion purged but not info on a felony.
On the other hand... In addition to searching foe people who get called out for offensive behavior also search for those who engage in mob mentality and hold them accountable when they try to find a job.
One of the cited cases was a person whispering to a friend during a conference, and a stranger who listened in felt offended.
Not only is it easier to publish things, it is also easier to attack people. The only thing needed to begin a shaming, is a large list of followers and the ability to tell a narrative.
I'm not certain if you realise this, but that was part of a much broader discussion on sexism in tech - there's plenty of discussion on the topic of women feeling threatened by the male-dominated atmosphere at some tech conferences.
It's not good, however, that these two got singled out when I have no doubt that there was much worse said at that conference alone.
Anyway, the point of my post was the last line - if free speech doesn't work when the masses have a voice, has it ever actually been a good ideal to work towards?
But it's still niche media manipulating the voice and attention of the masses, as illustrated by the article. There is so much bigotry and racism that goes unnoticed in the depths of comment boards and bad blogs. Why aren't the masses also voicing about any of this? Because they aren't speaking briefly enough to be easily criticizable.
> There is so much bigotry and racism that goes unnoticed in the depths of comment boards and bad blogs. Why aren't the masses also voicing about any of this?
They do. Constantly. It's just that most of the time, they're talking about <such-and-such a site's community> or <such-and-such a blog> rather than individual people.
If you published something similarly obnoxious in a newspaper before the Internet, I'm sure you'd get a similarly angry response from some people, and quite possibly have someone harass you in person if they knew where to find you.
If you stood on top of a soap box and shouted offensive crap at the public, you might have stuff thrown at you.
The only things that have changed - it's easier to publish things online, you're publishing for a global audience rather than a national or a local one, it's easier to find other people who find those publications obnoxious online, and it's a two-way medium rather than the traditional one-way medium of newspapers.
Basically, the masses finally have a voice. If that's a problem, perhaps free speech has never actually had a chance of working?