On top of everything else, this whole discourse is frustratingly Americanised. That XKCD cartoon is just laying out the inplications of the (outdated, written in a time when only governments had the power to censor) First Amendment.
Even at the time of 1A this idea was relevant. In “Democracy in America” ADT wrote about social opprobrium as an important force that repressed speech.
“The authority of a king is purely physical, and it controls the actions of the subject without subduing his private will; but the majority possesses a power which is physical and moral at the same time; it acts upon the will as well as upon the actions of men, and it represses not only all contest, but all controversy.”
I think you're reading too much into the original comic. It doesn't comment on whether the "showing you the door" is good or bad, it's just saying that when the following example takes place:-
a) Mr X is invited as a guest on a radio show,
b) Mr X says something which the majority of the listeners of the radio show think is terrible,
c) Mr X is uninvited from the radio show,
d) Mr X asks about his RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH
that Mr X's speech isn't protected under the first amendment.
It certainly doesn't say that you should be fired from your job for a tweet or a misunderstanding.
The problem is the comic refers to consequences and makes it clear the consequences could be economic - "boycotted, have your show cancelled..." It's very hard to read that as anything other than endorsing the private sector inflicting economic punishments on the speaker. He could just as easily be talking about the Dixie Chicks.
On top of everything else, this whole discourse is frustratingly Americanised. That XKCD cartoon is just laying out the inplications of the (outdated, written in a time when only governments had the power to censor) First Amendment.
Even at the time of 1A this idea was relevant. In “Democracy in America” ADT wrote about social opprobrium as an important force that repressed speech.
“The authority of a king is purely physical, and it controls the actions of the subject without subduing his private will; but the majority possesses a power which is physical and moral at the same time; it acts upon the will as well as upon the actions of men, and it represses not only all contest, but all controversy.”
I think you're reading too much into the original comic. It doesn't comment on whether the "showing you the door" is good or bad, it's just saying that when the following example takes place:-
a) Mr X is invited as a guest on a radio show,
b) Mr X says something which the majority of the listeners of the radio show think is terrible,
c) Mr X is uninvited from the radio show,
d) Mr X asks about his RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH
that Mr X's speech isn't protected under the first amendment.
It certainly doesn't say that you should be fired from your job for a tweet or a misunderstanding.
The problem is the comic refers to consequences and makes it clear the consequences could be economic - "boycotted, have your show cancelled..." It's very hard to read that as anything other than endorsing the private sector inflicting economic punishments on the speaker. He could just as easily be talking about the Dixie Chicks.
I don't agree that the comic endorses this. It simply says that it's not a 1st amendment issue.