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, 13:24:21 UTC 3 years ago
I suspect these jerks may also be afraid that SWFA may get around to exercising its "Freedom of the press" to tell them that they can't use the organization's resources to spread that sort of speech.
That was another concept that the BBS users tended to not get. That freedom of speech *doesn't* include the right to use somebody else's "press" to spread your ideas. That comes under freedom of the press, and pretty much amounts to "the owner gets to say what does and doesn't get printed".
In this case SFWA, by *not* shutting these guys down is de facto making the statement that the organization doesn't object to what they are saying. Which is very much not good for SWFA.
Whoever is in charge probably thinks that exercising editorial control (freedom of the press) would be violating the "freedom of speech" of the jerks. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
If I say "you can't say that on my site" , then you are stuck. My site, my rules. You are completely free to try to find some other site that will let you say it.
And if nobody wants to, then you can start your *own* site.
Again, freedom of speech doesn't include the right to use other people's resources to spread your ideas. Nor does it include any right to make people listen. Expecting them to *agree* with you? It is to laugh.
And yes, people *do* get to talk back to you. Or about you. Unless it rises to the standard of libel or slander, you get to live with their responses as part of the *price* of freedom of speech. Because they get it too.
July 5 2013, 14:05:22 UTC 3 years ago