Response to Kara - Cancel culture/Social Punishment technically is speech

 I think free speech is a difficult line to navigate. There is free speech, but there is also responsible speech. When CMC decides to have a speaker at the atheneum that talks about how voting is a negligible action and will never have any impact, some argued that was not responsible of the college to do. When CMC decides to have a speaker at the atheneum who repeatedly invalidates sexual assault in a time where many women have expressed having experiences of sexual assault, there is a very powerful argument that having that speaker come caused harm to the students. Maybe firms and college campuses cannot police free speech but can/should they regulate speech so that all speech produced is responsible?

Even in the article shared by Marta, the girl specifically talked about how she feels as if her political opinions are unpopular. What is the college supposed to do about that? Make her classmates nod or force them to agree with her? That seems counterintuitive to the claims you described. Free speech laws empower her to voice her opinion, but it also empower her classmates to roll their eyes, verbally disagree, and/or distance themselves from her. You can't really regulate away cancel culture or being socially punished, because that is people's prerogative to do as individuals who have their own opinions and want to express them through speech or association. Sure you can set up structures so people cannot be fired for voicing an unpopular opinion but you can't protect them from social isolation or punishment. Policing people's ability to "cancel" people would literally be the type of rights violation that Anderson believes firms do. 

Also, firms and college campuses should definitely be able to fire and/or expel people for racist, sexist, homophobic, and any other problematic beliefs because people being able to express those beliefs impact the productivity of the workplace and the safety of the campus environment. Also being racist really isn't a right we have as individuals, so it really isn't something that can be encroached. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Development as White Saviorism

Sen’s take on viewing development as freedom seems coherent when the developing body is a part of the community that is being developed. There are troublesome aspects (like the implicit acceptance of unequal distribution of freedoms), but those can be justified and or fixed with minor alterations. However, the account’s flaws become prominent when applied to situations where the developing body is external to the community that is being developed. Because Sen does not factor in the context of when the development occurs and does not outline who can even be a developer, his account would allow for white saviorism.  The issue is not with what Sen’s account includes, but what it does not. Sen’s account does not argue for an equal distribution of freedom. While he believes we should expand freedoms in the most effective way, if this does not expand freedoms equally, it is not clear that Sen would view that as a bad thing. This leaves room for marginalized people in society to be even...
Read more

I used to be a libertarian and i think Nozick is full of shit

In Anarchy State and Utopia, Nozick argues that patterned principles of justice will require “continuous interference with people’s lives” to continually realize their pattern of distributive justice (162). As an alternative, he argues for an unpatterned principle of distributive justice (PDJ) based on the principle of entitlement. I want to examine some of the key assumptions and concepts he makes in his account in this blog post.  Nozick’s entitlement theory views just modes of interacting with one’s holdings as necessarily leading to a just pattern of distribution. Namely, once justice in acquisition and justice in transfer have been achieved, the resulting distribution is just. As Nozick puts is “whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just” (151). He also touches on “the rectification of injustice in holdings” but goes on to say that the exact nature of that principle is unclear and not discussed by him or others (152). This seems like a bit of a dodge to...
Read more

The other face of the father of capitalism?

I found reading Smith's theory of Moral Sentiments interesting because a lot of it felt nothing like what he's purported to be according to all the "father of capitalism" stuff. I see how he developed something like the invisible hand because of how he develops his theory: based on observation. He makes empirical claims above human behavior in relation to which actions we approve and disapprove based on how much we can sympathize with the actor. Both this theory and the one about the invisible hand seems to be an explanation about an observed phenomena.  While I think that the method he uses to develop his theories are similar, the ideas present in this piece seems radically different than ideas on capitalism. The ideas that he present in Chapter two remind me a lot of Kantian ethics. The specific passage that reminded me of this was:  "When he views himself in the light in which he is conscious that others will view him, he sees that to them he is but one of the...
Read more