That's not what "cancelling" means in this context--we're talking about concerted efforts to have people's employment terminated (or to dox them or send them explicit threats or etc). I don't see how this is anything other than harassment and intimidation, but even if it isn't, hate speech also falls under the rubric of "free expression", but it doesn't mean we can't (or oughtn't) use our own free speech rights to criticize and protest it.

> but it doesn't mean we can't (or oughtn't) use our own free speech rights to criticize and protest it.

I agree. But this goes in both directions. You can't claim to support free expression while saying that certain forms of speech are unacceptable. It is self-contradictory. Yet that's what harper's does. It criticizes certain forms of speech (criticism) while claiming to uphold the mantle of free expression. You can't have it both ways.

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1280992193591689221

> You can't claim to support free expression while saying that certain forms of speech are unacceptable.

I'm not making this claim; I'm claiming that it's inconsistent with free speech ideals. I'm not working to prevent anyone from expressing speech which isn't consistent with free speech ideals, and I'm certainly not trying to get anyone fired for their anti-free-speech ideals.

Which ideals? The ideal that speech should be free from criticism is self-contradictory. Criticism itself is speech, and so the claim that speech should be free from criticism is itself a condemnation of forms of speech.

All we can settle for is that no speech is unlawful. Because of that, I don't claim to support any particular "ideal of free speech". None of them are resolvable without contradiction.

> and I'm certainly not trying to get anyone fired for their anti-free-speech ideals.

I don't believe I've seen anyone fired solely for their abstract support for free expression. Care to give examples.

> Which ideals? The ideal that speech should be free from criticism is self-contradictory.

The ideal that we don't try to suppress speech we disagree with, but rather we encourage it to debate it.

> Criticism itself is speech, and so the claim that speech should be free from criticism is itself a condemnation of forms of speech.

You're confusing an idea with its expression. There's no inconsistency between free speech ideals and criticizing the idea that speech should be restricted. However, it would be inconsistent to suggest that someone oughtn't express that idea and especially to try to actively prevent someone from expressing it. In other words, anyone welcome to express a belief that censorship is a good thing, but I'm not violating free speech ideals by expressing disagreeing with them; quite the opposite!

> joshuamorton 25 minutes ago | parent | on: Blog Anonymously

Which ideals? The ideal that speech should be free from criticism is self-contradictory. Criticism itself is speech, and so the claim that speech should be free from criticism is itself a condemnation of forms of speech.

All we can settle for is that no speech is unlawful. Because of that, I don't claim to support any particular "ideal of free speech". None of them are resolvable without contradiction.

> I don't believe I've seen anyone fired solely for their abstract support for free expression. Care to give examples.

You misunderstood my post. I was certainly not arguing that anyone has been fired for expressing abstract support for free speech. Rather, I was saying criticizing the idea of restricting speech is not inconsistent with free speech ideals, but rather trying to stop someone from expressing their desire for speech restrictions (and especially by trying to get them fired) would be inconsistent with free speech ideals. However, no one is trying to stop anyone from expressing their preferences for speech restrictions and certainly no one is trying to get anyone fired for expressing those preferences.

> Rather, I was saying criticizing the idea of restricting speech is not inconsistent with free speech ideals

Restricting in what way though? Formal restrictions: laws, assuredly this is inconsistent. But if the "restriction" not a formal restriction, but instead a reaction to criticism, then this is a meta-criticism of criticism, and that is counter to those ideals, because criticism itself is speech.

It's also potentially tortious interference:

https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/liability-and-insurance/to...

This seems unlikely. From your link:

> For example, Adam could refuse to do business with Bill after learning that Bill has a contract or business relationship with an organization that Adam finds morally distasteful. Adam knows that his business is worth more to Bill than the other organization's and that his refusal to deal is substantially certain to cause Bill to terminate his contractual or business relationship with the other organization. Since his motivation is not improper, Bill's actions would not satisfy a claim of tortious interference by the other organization.

Not in all cases necessarily, but just read the next line:

> On the other hand, if Adam means to punish the other organization or put them out of business by taking the advantages of their relationship with Bill away, it is more likely that a tortious interference has occurred.

That's an anticompetitive practice. Which makes sense in the context of a tortious interference claim between two businesses.

But you can't sue <the collection of 20,000 twitter users> for collectively boycotting a business for doing a thing they disapprove of. If Sleeping Giants is immune to Tortious Interference claims, so is pretty much everyone else in this context.

> That's an anticompetitive practice.

There's no evidence that Adam and the targeted business are in competition. Having intent to harm is sufficient to be a relevant factor.

> But you can't sue <the collection of 20,000 twitter users> for collectively boycotting a business for doing a thing they disapprove of. If Sleeping Giants is immune to Tortious Interference claims, so is pretty much everyone else in this context.

That's also not an example of cancellation that we've been talking about in this thread, so that's irrelevant.