angryHere's the thing: No one involved in this fight is saying "you should never use your freedom of speech." Not to anyone, not at all. We are, after all, not the government. What we are saying is "you didn't buy the 'freedom from consequences' expansion pack." And really, that's what's being requested here: not freedom of speech, but freedom from the consequences of speaking.
"Sure, I called another professional in my field sub-human because I dislike their race/religion/choice of ice cream flavors! But I'm allowed! I have FREEDOM OF SPEECH."
"Sure, I told that fatso urban fantasy author to lose some weight and brush her hair so that we could take her seriously as a writer! But I'm allowed! I have FREEDOM OF SPEECH."
"Sure, I misgendered another author for funsies, refusing to acknowledge the reality of their existence! But I'm allowed! I have FREEDOM OF SPEECH."
Nope.
Nope.
THE NOPETOPUS RIDES AGAIN.
If someone chooses to say sexist, racist, bigoted shit, that's on them: that’s theirs to deal with. I will not restrict their ability to say it. But there will be consequences. Maybe consequences as minor as me not wanting to have a conversation with them; maybe consequences as major as an editor choosing not to work with them, or an agent declining to sign them, as they would be bad for the agency’s image (and hence bottom line).
These "rabid weasels" (term coined by Mary Robinette Kowal, the voice of Toby and a glorious voice of reason) are HARMING SFWA AS A PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION. Not just by taking time and energy away from writing—which, gods know, is a thing we all need to be doing more of—but by making us look, in public, like this is what all believe. They’re very loud, those weasels, and while they have the right to say whatever they want, we’re the ones choosing to allow them to do it inside our house.
I use my freedom of speech: I use it to say "that ain't cool" about a lot of things. For my trouble I am called a bitch, a whore, a slut, a cunt, a stupid cow, a pig, too dumb to rape, and a lot of other things. Those are the consequences of my speech. And the consequences of those words are simple:
I refuse to stop pointing out the people who use them.
July 4 2013, 03:54:56 UTC 3 years ago
Ergo, I can tell you this: nowhere in the Constitution does it guarantee the freedom to not be told that you are an epic dickbag, simply because you have chosen to exercise your freedom of speech to BE an epic dickbag. And while I will defend to the death your right to BE an epic dickbag, I may also point out that, y'know, I've found that life is really much nicer when you're NOT an epic dickbag. And definitely consider, as Mary Robinette Kowal points out, shutting the fuck up.
July 4 2013, 11:56:46 UTC 3 years ago
See this is a thing that drives lawyers nuts.
Freedom of speech means something VERY. SPECIFIC. What it means is that the government (or certain kinds of government actors or government actor like people and groups) cannot censor your speech (with some limitations for things like yelling "fire" in a movie theater and other limits that more or less make sense most of the time but clearly don't apply in cases where two groups in a professional organization are pissy at one another.)
So when someone says something that kicks up a firestorm in the public or in certain public groups and then bleats about their freedom of speech being hampered by all these people who find what they said offensive, I want to bash my head into a wall until the hurting stops. Being a dimbulb and proclaiming that black people should be dancing around like in a Shirley Temple Movie (Oh hi, Paula Deen!) or some of the things that have been kicking around about female genre writers in this whole debacle, does not entitle you to protection from public blowback simply because you were speaking your mind. What you are entitled to is not to have some government agency walk up and go "you shouldn't have said that and now you will pay the price."
While we all adore Seanan I sincerely hope she is not a secret government actor from whose intervention cranky old men hooting about the good old days when there were no wimmins in the tree house should be protected.
Although if she is, that would be...kind of awesome.
Contrast that with making threatening comments because you don't like someone's speech--ie, 'if you don't shut up I will find you and hurt you.' That's not protected speech either but it might get you government intervention--it's a threat, and threats of that nature are often punishable for the simple reason that it's hard to tell when someone runs up and goes "you oughtta be shot" whether they're being pissy or whether they're genuinely considering that as an option. What you are left with is me going "how are we this illiterate about how our society works?...I mean, really?..." I get that I'm a lawyer and I have lots of specialized training in this stuff, but it's not that hard to get that there's a distinction between 'government telling me what I can and can't say' and 'I just kicked a hornets nest by saying something large chunks of people find incredibly offensive'. It's really not. I taught basic citizen oriented constitutional law to sophomores in one of the worst inner-cities in the country--kids who were having SERIOUS education lag issues for the most part, who usually didn't read at grade level and such--and they got it pretty well.