The same people who declare that their speech and behavior ought to be sacrosanct, tend to be the same people who are leading the proverbial pitchfork wielding mob.
Brandon Eich was hounded out of Mozilla for believing that marriage was between a man and a woman, and Miami Dolphins’ Don Jones was sent for re-education for simply not liking two men kissing when he saw it. This is argued to be acceptable because “actions have consequences” and that free speech protections don’t apply to non-governmental institutions. Thus, the businesses could choose to not associate with an employee who says something they don’t like, as apparently an employee is his or her employers servant at all times. It is an ironic position taken by so many who believe that the government forcing bakers, photographers, and florists to not only associate with others but to violate their own freedom and speech and religion is a pre-requisite for being allowed to operate a business.
An example of this double-standard can be seen with a 19 year old college student decided to become a porn star and took part in a video for a internet porn site. As a consequence of her stint as a porn performer, people criticized and belittled her. After a life of a troubled upbringing (including parents arrested for drug dealing), this was the final straw for her and she committed suicide. As tragic as this was, another college porn queen, and “Womens Studies” major, the infamous Belle Knox, used it as an excuse to condemn “bullies” who would not tolerate people who did and said things they did not like.
Funny, then, how neither Belle Knox, nor the student who took her own life, are held to a standard where they are subject to the consequences of their actions. What were the consequences? Merely criticism by others exercising their free speech to disagree with what those teenage porn stars were doing. There are claims that there was harassment of the porn queens, but is that very different from the proverbial pitchfork wielding mobs that that were responsible for Eich’s ouster?
Similarly, Michael Sam was free to smooch another man, but was also responsible for dealing with the consequences of his action, which again is the criticism of others. Yet for Michael Sam, as well as Belle Knox, their behavior and speech are protected and held sacrosanct. It is those who merely express disapproval who are targeted. If Jones is fully responsible for his speech, and the rabid mob that went after him, when why isn’t Sam fully responsible for the very mild disapproval aimed at him? If it is acceptable to viciously go after Jones and threaten his very job, then why wouldn’t it be for acceptable for Jones to not try to threaten Sam’s job but only express disapproval!
This is because “some… are more equal than others.”
Mere disagreement has become bullying and oppression, while true bullying and frothing mobs riling against simple disagreement becomes simple criticism.
Why the disparity? Simply, the hypocrites will apply whichever standard is useful at the time, and then turn 180° when it is useful to do so.
But this goes far beyond that. These hypocrites will go after people for merely disagreeing, even if that disagreement had nothing to do over which they are being targeted! Just for merely disagreeing, you can become a target in all things, including your job or even your bank account! By disagreeing, you become a “legitimate” target for persecution, to be hounded out of your job or other associations, even if you job or associations have nothing to do with why you are persecuted in the first case. This becomes acceptable because people are free to pressure companies to not associate with the bad people with whom the hypocrites disagree, because the 1st Amendment does not protect how one private person or entity chooses to associate with another, if at all. Yet, if these same companies or private persons acted that way with those hypocrites, those hypocrites would yell about oppression, discrimination, and claim government protection.
Even those who agree with the hypocrites views on what is acceptable or abhorrent will be subject to the proverbial pitchfork wielding mob if they are not part of the blood-thirsty mob to enforce those view! It becomes acceptable to get a company to fire an employee for simply stating that they believe that a person has a right to be wrong! It becomes acceptable to bully a person into exile from “polite society” for doing nothing but state that people are allowed to disagree.
Express an acceptable behavior or the correct speech, and you will become free of criticism, however mild it may be, with the power and privilege of declaring those who dare disagree to be evil incarnate. Express “incorrect” speech, and you will receive now protection, but only the wrath of an angry mob.