This letter is an appeal to Harvard workers to take a stand against the McCarthyite campaign targeting students who expressed their opposition to Israel's attack on Gaza.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. If these students and this letter author believe in their cause, they should have the courage of their convictions. They should put their names out and be proud of their ideals. They should be willing to accept the consequences that that speech brings.
I suspect the author of the letter and the students want free speech that is free from consequences. It is a thing many on the left and the right share when their positions are unpopular.
I did not advocate for violence. I do advocate for consequences to actions. If you say something vile, you should expect for people to treat you as someone who said something vile.
I have reread the article several times. No one in it advocates for violence against the authors of the letter. They do advocate for them losing jobs and other economic advantages. So not sure where you are even getting this from.
But to explore your ideology a little further. Do you advocate the same thing for Jewish people who support Israel? My guess is you don’t. Do you condemn Hamas for their “day of rage” proclamation, an actual call to violence?
I am curious for your answer. My guess is all of a sudden your position is more nuanced.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. If these students and this letter author believe in their cause, they should have the courage of their convictions. They should put their names out and be proud of their ideals. They should be willing to accept the consequences that that speech brings.
I suspect the author of the letter and the students want free speech that is free from consequences. It is a thing many on the left and the right share when their positions are unpopular.
Anonymous speech is valid speech. There is no requirement for what you say, moral or ethical.
Just as there is no requirement that it be consequence free.
But to further your point. There is no right to anonymity. There is no requirement for what you say morally or ethically.
Too bad things like war crimes often go without consequences.
Well that is quite the false equivalence.
It sounds like some of the consequences of free speech is violence in this case.
I did not advocate for violence. I do advocate for consequences to actions. If you say something vile, you should expect for people to treat you as someone who said something vile.
What was in the letter that was vile enough to be attacked?
If signing it means being physically attacked, regardless of what was written, that is an assault on freedom of speech.
I have reread the article several times. No one in it advocates for violence against the authors of the letter. They do advocate for them losing jobs and other economic advantages. So not sure where you are even getting this from.
But to explore your ideology a little further. Do you advocate the same thing for Jewish people who support Israel? My guess is you don’t. Do you condemn Hamas for their “day of rage” proclamation, an actual call to violence?
I am curious for your answer. My guess is all of a sudden your position is more nuanced.
Try again, and look for the parts about death threats?