[friweenb] Speech should not have social consequences

The purpose of freedom of speech is the betterment of society through a marketplace of ideas.  This purpose makes no distinction whether obstacles to freedom of speech, i.e., censorship, are through government-imposed consequences or social consequences.

The boundary between social actions and government actions is often not so clear cut, for example, social structures and punishment mechanisms as powerful as the law.  This why I am surprised by Popehat's Ken White, who vigorously fights against powerful entities abusing the legal system (SLAPP) to silence their critics, but seems to be vigorously FOR the same entities being able to abuse other sorts of power ("social consequences") to accomplish the same effect.

We do not pass laws forbidding people from inflicting social consequences on speech they find offensive because it would criminalize most of the population with a very low likelihood of equal protection about who gets prosecuted.  However, just because the law permits it doesn't mean you should do it.