I think most people would agree: there are some things you can do or say that should have social and economic consequences. Say a 3L phoned every single lawyer in Canada and gave a customized 15-minute speech about how that lawyer is ugly and dumb, interspersed with racial slurs that applied to that lawyer, followed by graphic comments about sexual acts they'd like to perform upon that lawyer's prepubescent children, followed by a listing of where said children attend elementary school and what sort of candy the 3L would use to lure them into his van. If, then, nobody wanted to hire that guy, nobody would be calling for "free speech" and insisting that his victims hire him. If we accept the principle that some stuff isn't okay to say, then it just becomes a matter of what stuff.
Accepting that some things are bad to say, the two completely unrelated questions are, "What things are so bad to say that people can put you in jail for saying them?", and, "What things can you say that people can make judgments of you for having said them?" And the answer to the latter is, "Anything. Anything you say or do, people can feel how they want to feel about it." If some group thought this article was excellent and wanted to give the author $10,000 for writing it, I bet he'd take the money. I bet he has no objection to people judging what he says, if their judgment is positive. And once you've opened that door, you've got to accept that sometimes people are going to like what you say and act accordingly, and sometimes people are going to dislike what you say and act accordingly. If I become a lawyer in 2070 or so, there are lawyers here who wouldn't dream of hiring me---10% because I don't share their politics, 90% because I'm an asshole about it. If you say stuff, people are going to form opinions about what you say. That's life.
When you call for "free speech" for a Jordan Peterson or for whoever "wrote" this "article", you're not actually talking about "free speech"---you're talking about "speech free of social consequences". All you're saying is that the speech of people like me, who find that speech heinous and want to express that, should be limited. For me, never mind the content of the article---I wouldn't hire someone who wrote as poorly as the original article was written to do anything, ever. Neither should anyone else. Nothing that poorly written has gone out under my name since I was seven years old, and based on the article, I don't think the writer is qualified for the third grade, never mind a law job. Am I allowed to think that? If I'm allowed to draw negative conclusions about someone based on how they write and whether it strikes me as appropriate for a professional job (or the third grade), why am I not allowed to draw negative conclusions about someone based on what they write and whether it strikes me as appropriate for a professional job? The only answer I see from some of the more right-wing folks on this board is, "I don't personally have a problem with someone saying such-and-such, so therefore it's okay, and other opinions aren't necessary." Who's limiting whose speech?
Edited by Yogurt Baron, 14 January 2017 - 04:08 PM.