Hi! On 25.03.21 21:18, Gerardo Ballabio wrote:
Steve McIntyre wrote:
Do we really have to go through this argument *again*? Freedom of speech does *not* mean freedom from consequences.
Protest is part of the democratic tool box as much as the legal system you mention. The open letter is a public protest happening online.The point is who decides what the consequences are. That should be up to the legal system, not to some random group of people who gather together and decide to enact summary punishment.
If that protest is reasonable is something that you and me may have different opinions on, the only fact that we can currently agree on is that the actions of the FSF are causing dissent. Protestors are requesting accountability not only from RMS but also from the part of the board that reinstated him.
Accountability means to take responsibility for one's actions or words, to accept that they have consequences, and to acknowledge these consequences. Accountability does not mean that someone is being punished, it's a device demanding people to clean up their own mess instead of expecting people to wade through, ignore, or clean up the mess for them.
Being accountable is a starting point, not an end.Therefore, what the consequences are is entirely up to the FSF itself. There is a not-so-small protest in front of them, now it's up to them to decide how _they_ want to deal with it - and it's also _up to them_ to deal with the consequences resulting from the actions they will or will not undertake.
That some of us agree with this protest and some don't, and that the FSF may _decide for themselves_ how they want to react to that is exactly the f-r-e-e-d-o-m you conjure.
Cheers, Ulrike