Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'm not impressed with this argument, which we are seeing more of these days. Expressing one's opinion on controversial issues risks that people will be pissed off, but it isn't just the originally expressed opinion that is "free speech"; the furious criticisms of the original opinion are also "free speech". Refusing to associate with people because of their expressed opinions is also a right.

And there isn't one orthodoxy, there are many. The range of opinions that can be expressed in the vicinity of Paul Graham without risking that he won't fund your startup is very different from the range of opinions that an assistant professor going for tenure in a humanities department may express, but it's not clear whether Graham is conscious of the orthodoxy he himself imposes, by his economic power.



It's not enough to merely criticize someone. The fear is that you are fired and your career is destroyed, which is very bad for you and your family. When expressing even a minor deviation from the party line can result in life-destroying consequences, all dissent and discussion is stifled out of fear. This is the chilling effect.


Yes, if it were true that "expressing even a minor deviation from the party line can result in life-destroying consequences", that would be bad. But it really isn't. You can get fired from a company by disagreeing with its party line on some issue, but that doesn't destroy your life.


There has never been a time in history when this wasn't the case for certain views. PG touches on this for much of this article. The difference now is that fairly orthodox views are the ones people are facing consequences for.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: