Free speech means you dont get put into jail, or worse, for the speech you exercise. The right to free speech does not mean you are entitled to no negative consequences for your speech in the private domain.
Free speech doesn't mean that you get to do opeds (otherwise clearly I'm being repressed because this comment of mine wasn't included in the NYT on their oped page), or that they shouldnt affect your admissions, which are significantly based on like 10 essays you write anyways.
Anyways, the NYT Cotton op-ed example is highly disingenuous. Tom Cotton suffered no negative consequences, and no one was unhappy with him. The NY Times also defended the op-ed and never once said they regretted publishing it or wouldn't in the future.
The NYT only took responsibility for egregious factual errors, that should have been caught during an editorial process, and the opinion editor was fired because he spent days defending the article, including in an all hands on deck internal meeting, without having read it!
That's literally the first job of an editor. To read an article so they can "edit" it.
> Free speech means you dont get put into jail, or worse, for the speech you exercise. The right to free speech does not mean you are entitled to no negative consequences for your speech in the private domain.
I'm not sure where you came up with that definition. Free speech as whole is much more expansive than that. From Wikipedia: "Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction."
Free speech as legal concept means exactly what you claim (via the 1st amendment). But there's a broader concept to consider as well. Just because the government isn't arresting you doesn't mean your speech can't be restricted. People in the private domain targeting you for you speech can lead to an effective restriction on your speech.
Now, I'm in agreement with you that the NYT case isn't really a a great example for this at all, since Tom Cotton has many other avenues for exercising his right to speech, and it was NYT who faced the backlash, not him. But I'd say the David Shor[0] case, and Justine Sacco case[1] is great example for showing the effect private actions can have on restricting speech. It's likely that both these individuals will be much more careful when they speak in the public sphere again.
My point isn't that we should make this sort of "harassment" (for lack of a better word) illegal. That would just be restricting the free speech of the critics instead. But we should recognize that restrictions on free speech come from more than just the government, and work to build a culture where these kinds of restrictions are more rare. That would have the added benefit of strengthening public discourse and debate.
Free speech doesn't mean that you get to do opeds (otherwise clearly I'm being repressed because this comment of mine wasn't included in the NYT on their oped page), or that they shouldnt affect your admissions, which are significantly based on like 10 essays you write anyways.
Anyways, the NYT Cotton op-ed example is highly disingenuous. Tom Cotton suffered no negative consequences, and no one was unhappy with him. The NY Times also defended the op-ed and never once said they regretted publishing it or wouldn't in the future.
The NYT only took responsibility for egregious factual errors, that should have been caught during an editorial process, and the opinion editor was fired because he spent days defending the article, including in an all hands on deck internal meeting, without having read it!
That's literally the first job of an editor. To read an article so they can "edit" it.