It is often argued that “freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences”. For one example, see xkcd: Free Speech. According to that argument, freedom of speech only bars State censorship, while individuals and private organizations can punish taboo speech at will.

Up to a point, that argument is valid. The State’s great coercive power must be carefully limited, while private individuals and organizations have freedom of association. Indeed, individuals and organizations do not freely choose whether to be under the State’s jurisdiction and, therefore, society faces the great danger of the State becoming oppressive and trampling over rights and liberties. Even elected governments can become oppressive, because of dangers such as the tyranny of the majority. On the other hand, people choose whether to associate with (other) individuals and private organizations. If an individual or private organization becomes oppressive, it can be avoided. Therefore, the argument goes, individuals and private organizations can arbitrarily punish unwanted behavior and even taboo speech with actions such as boycotts and pressure to resign.

That is true, but only up to a point. A free, liberal society needs not only limits to State coercion, but also a prevailing culture of tolerance. Social exclusion is a great power and, if exerted unjustly, can cause great injustice. Lawmakers have even found it necessary to criminalize some forms of unjust social exclusion by individuals and private organizations. For example, American law forbids certain forms of discriminatory social exclusion concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing.

While some forms of unjust social exclusion have already been criminalized, it is naive to think that intolerant, unjust or unwise social exclusion is a solved problem. The belief that all legal forms of shunning are just rests on the assumption that the State has already criminalized all the unjust ones. However, the State cannot criminalize every error—if it did, it would be totalitarian. For justice and coherence, I do not campaign for all Stallman’s detractors to be punished. Instead, I counter their bad (unwise and illiberal) campaign with topical counterarguments.

Social exclusion based on personal political opinions outside (and unrelated to) the person’s job is, in almost all cases, counterproductive to a free society. Generally speaking, society must counter unwanted opinions with topical counterarguments or (when appropriate) harsh rebukes. Campaigns to severely punish the speaker should be reserved for a few delineated cases—e.g. Nazi apologetics or denigration of subordinates on the basis of sex, race or sexual orientation by a holder of institutional power.

If society gets used to severely punishing taboo political opinions unrelated to the speaker’s job—and even after he retracted the most shocking one—then what happens when, on a given subject, orthodoxy happens to be wrong? How can we have an honest debate, seek Truth, and effect social change? What happened to freedom of inquiry?

Indeed, according to Suzanne Nossel (CEO of PEN America and former executive director of Amnesty International USA), calling on institutions to restrict speech empowers them and “they will, on balance, deploy that prerogative self-servingly to suppress critics.” She adds: