-----Original Message----- From: David Barrett [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, 02 April, 2021 7:38 PM To: lolwut Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: GNU FSF: Richard Stallman Returns
> On Fri, Apr 2, 2021, 4:04 PM lolwut <[email protected]> wrote: >> that it, in effect, makes illegal > I'm a bit confused by the whole concept of "cancel culture". You describe it > as free speech being made "in effect illegal" by people expressing their > concerns (eg, in this case calling for RMS to be removed from the board). > But aren't they just as free to speak their concerns, as the speech that > created the concerns? And isn't the board fully within their rights to > listen to the those concerns and weigh them in their decisions? > Basically, is this actually a few speech issue, or do you just disagree with > the perfectly legal decisions of the board, who are listening to the > perfectly free feedback and concerns of the public? > David The main point was that I was criticizing the notion of "cyberbullying", because it's an idiotic concept that, if made into law, restricts freedom of speech. This criticism of mine persists outside of the particular RMS issue. I think that you are confused over the thing I was describing that makes free speech "in effect illegal": I was referring to laws against "cyberbullying", which is absolutely a form of censorship that reduces the amount of free speech; I was not referring to cancel culture, which does not make certain speech illegal, though it is nevertheless contemptible. Yes, I agree that Stallman's opponents are free to speak their concerns, and even insult him, which is why I took issue with the Molly de Blanc article that grarpamp linked to, because it is basically calling for censorship of de Blanc by means of the meme law of "cyberbullying". This is something that not even some moron of cancel culture deserves.
