[Goose]

I agree with your post as well. The lines are difficult to draw. But that’s what life is. We exercise judgment.

If a man tells a woman on a first date that she’s asking for sex because she’s wearing revealing clothes, should the response be “I’ll defend to the death your right to say that?” It sounds like you would concede that the woman has the prerogative to get up and leave, but is any further action acceptable in your view?  Is it wrong for her to warn her friends about the man?  Is it wrong for her to post negative comments about him online? If he someday is in the position of applying for a job where she’ll be his boss, should she have to overlook his speech and hire him if he has the best professional qualifications?I’d say his speech has consequences and all those consequences are fair game.

As I said in my post, you do not have to like or associate with somebody whose views are incompatible with your own. Exactly what is permissible regarding somebody you do not "like" is a personal choice, as you say. You are, IMO, justified in refusing to hire him if his views are incompatible with your own. You must of course be aware that your actions too may have consequences, and be "OK" with that. You might get sued, and you might lose, depending on the exact situation and the jury.

Maybe the woman should avoid the literal act of “shouting him down,” but the fair consequences seem much worse.

Maybe this is another example that’s extreme. You’re talking about speech that’s more personal preference than personal affront. We probably all should draw our lines a little more flexibly, but we’re still entitled to those lines. And I stand by my view that I would not want to attend a college that’s at the top of the “free speech” rankings.

In general, I am talking about things that are public, not "personal" at all. In your example, if you see the man referenced above handing out pamphlets on the corner of El Camino and Embarcadero advocating a dress code for women to avoid sexual temptation of others, even if you think he is obviously mistaken, it is not admissible to physically prevent him from doing so.  You may not block his path or throw things at him. You may not use a megaphone to drown him out. You are of course free to follow him around and express a contrary point of view if you are so inclined :-).

If some ideas (that are "legal") can be suppressed, there is IMO no way to draw the line.  If the opposition can ever be shouted down (instead of being refuted or ignored), it becomes acceptable to shout anything down. History clearly demonstrates this is true. Eventually, the "idiots" will become the majority, at least for a time. If it is socially admissible to shout down the opposition, the "idiots" (define idiots however you wish) can legitimately do so, and reversing their majority status may become impossible.  IMO it must be the social norm that it is always impermissible to muzzle the "opposition", how ever odious they are to you personally. Otherwise, democracy cannot persist indefinitely.

[Goose]

I agree with your post as well. The lines are difficult to draw. But that’s what life is. We exercise judgment.

If a man tells a woman on a first date that she’s asking for sex because she’s wearing revealing clothes, should the response be “I’ll defend to the death your right to say that?” It sounds like you would concede that the woman has the prerogative to get up and leave, but is any further action acceptable in your view?  Is it wrong for her to warn her friends about the man?  Is it wrong for her to post negative comments about him online? If he someday is in the position of applying for a job where she’ll be his boss, should she have to overlook his speech and hire him if he has the best professional qualifications?I’d say his speech has consequences and all those consequences are fair game.

As I said in my post, you do not have to like or associate with somebody whose views are incompatible with your own. Exactly what is permissible regarding somebody you do not "like" is a personal choice, as you say. You are, IMO, justified in refusing to hire him if his views are incompatible with your own. You must of course be aware that your actions too may have consequences, and be "OK" with that. You might get sued, and you might lose, depending on the exact situation and the jury.

Maybe the woman should avoid the literal act of “shouting him down,” but the fair consequences seem much worse.

Maybe this is another example that’s extreme. You’re talking about speech that’s more personal preference than personal affront. We probably all should draw our lines a little more flexibly, but we’re still entitled to those lines. And I stand by my view that I would not want to attend a college that’s at the top of the “free speech” rankings.

In general, I am talking about things that are public, not "personal" at all. In your example, if you see the man referenced above handing out pamphlets on the corner of El Camino and Embarcadero advocating a dress code for women to avoid sexual temptation of others, even if you think he is obviously mistaken, it is not admissible to physically prevent him from doing so.  You may not block his path or throw things at him. You may not use a megaphone to drown him out. You are of course free to follow him around and express a contrary point of view if you are so inclined :-).

If some ideas (that are "legal") can be suppressed, there is IMO no way to draw the line.  If the opposition can ever be shouted down (instead of being refuted or ignored), it becomes acceptable to shout anything down. History clearly demonstrates this is true. Eventually, the "idiots" will become the majority, at least for a time. If it is socially admissible to shout down the opposition, the "idiots" (define idiots however you wish) can legitimately do so, and reversing their majority status may become impossible.  IMO it must be the social norm that it is always impermissible to muzzle the "opposition", how ever odious they are to you personally. Otherwise, democracy cannot persist indefinitely.