"Free Speech"

In the wake of the Mozilla-Eich craziness, it is really worth re-examining what exactly we mean by "Free Speech".

I know, its there in the constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Crystal clear, innit?

To absolutely no-ones surprise, this has meant a lot of things over the years, including 

• You can say anything you want, and we can throw your ass in jail for saying it (i.e., no, "thought crimes". This surprising viewpoint held for till 1801)
• You can go to jail for saying that you oppose a war - even on the campaign trail (yup. in 1919 no less! Debs. vs. U.S.)
• "Free Speech" doesn't apply to the states! (till 1940! Cantwell vs. U.S.)

And the list goes on. For a complete history, read Geoffrey R. Stone's "Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime: From the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism".  The potted version would read something like "During war, your rights get pulled back, and then in peace-time people realize what idiots they've been, and expand the frontiers", but that doesn't really do it justice.  

Go read the book. 

Seriously.

Anyhow, back to the Mozilla-Eich craziness - Scalzi puts it best when he says

But, but… Mr. Eich should be free to believe what he wants, and to contribute to any political cause he so chooses! Well, and so he is, and I would, as they say, defend to the death his right to do so. What he is not free from — and this is the thing which people seem to fall down on again and again — are the consequences of his actions. When you’re the CEO of a corporation where a large number of your stakeholders support same sex marriage, either for personal or professional reasons, your choice in the past to offer support to make such (at the time legal) marriages illegal is a legitimate issue for discussion. Additionally, your further choice not to speak on your current personal thoughts on the topic (whether or not you pledge your company to openness and diversity) is also a legitimate issue for discussion. If a CEO is not willing to accept that there are consequences to his or her past and current actions, they should not be a CEO. Being a CEO isfundamentally about there being consequences to your actions.

Which pretty much sums it up.  I really have nothing to add here, except that this is exactly the time that one needs to brush up on their Charles Stross' 10 points about speech.  I'll leave you with -1-, -6-, and -10-

1. The First Amendment protects you from government sanction, either directly (by criminal prosecution) or indirectly (when someone uses the government's laws and the courts to punish you, as in a defamation action). It is currently in vogue to exclaim "NOBODY IS ARGUING OTHERWISE" when someone makes this point. Bullshit. People are consistently saying that private action (like criticism, or firings) violates the First Amendment, either directly or through sloppy implication.Promoting ignorance about our most important rights is a bad thing that we should call out, even when we're currently upset about something. Our rights are under constant assault on multiple fronts, and when we encourage citizens to misunderstand them we make it easier for the government to whittle them away.

6. Companies make decisions about hiring and firing based on both money and company culture. Sometimes these decisions are "right" in the sense that the decisions accurately predict what outcome will please the most customers and advertisers and keep revenues up. Sometimes the decisions are New Coke. Often the stated reasons for the decisions are hypocritical bullshit, as in the case of A&E. That's the way it works. Discussions about corporate decisions in the wake of controversy are dominated by (1) people who normally excoriate corporate decision-making but suddenly applaud it when the outcome suits their political beliefs, and (2) people who normally celebrate the market and promote the privilege of corporate decision-making but suddenly find it unpalatable when it produces a result that offends their politics. Some of the people applauding A&E are people who last week were furious at the concept that companies have First Amendment rights. Some of the people trying to conflate A&E and the government are people who last week were vigorously arguing that companies should not have to insure birth control if it offends their religious sensibilities.

10. You have no right to be free of offense. You also have no right to be free of people telling you that you are offensive. You only have a right to govern how you will react.

Or, to summarize, via Ann Telnaes