Freedom Of Speech Doesn't Mean Freedom From It's Consequences.

There's been a bit of a hullaballoo over B&D's suggestion to boycott the Daily Mail, along with a Twitter campaign against it, Obo and Anna Racoon all think this in some way attacks freedom of speech. They're wrong.

Freedom comes with consequences, it's the fulcrum that libertarianism in all it's forms sits upon. You do X, you are responsible for X and any direct consequences that come from it. Don't like consequences? Tough. Your ability to reap what you sow is the wellspring that all other freedoms flow from.

You say something people don't like - and you are free to do so - you are not free to expect people to simply absorb it. I will defend your right to say what you will, but I will also defend peoples right to tell you go fuck yourself right in the ear if they find it offensive.

As long as there is no force or coercion - and if you count social pressure, well we'd better start banning advertising as that relies on it too, and that's a road I have no wish to dance down - I really don't see an issue with highlighting your own personal disgust. That's freedom of speech too.

The concept of free speech means that people can call for a boycott. As is the choice to follow or ignore the request, which is part of being able to freely associate. Advertisers are free to walk away if they feel it endangers their business in some way.

Step back from the initial disgust at wanting someone silenced, and you'll see that is freedom working. That it may not be working quite how you expect it, or how you want it to work, is your problem, not freedoms.