Opinion Freedom of speech doesn't equal freedom from consequences.

[Wrath of Foamy]

Freedom of consequences shouldn't involve the law.

 

[panamaican]

It's not even a complex subject. The problem is that people seem to think that because the government cannot punish them for something then society cannot punish them either. And that's where they're wrong.

The even deeper problem is that people cannot accept when society views what is punishable differently from the individual. Let's say John really likes some obscure comic book. Fucking loves it. But society doesn't care for it. Society writes bad reviews and eventually pushes the comic out of print. That's life. But John simply cannot fathom that society would disagree with his preference so much that society would actually cause the end of that thing.

When that happens John insists that society must keep his comic book in print because he, John, is still interested in reading it.

The world doesn't work that way. Society, live a river, flows in a direction and not everyone is willing to swim with it. They can fight that direction, swim against the current, as much as they want but in the end society will continue to flow as it will. The sooner people realize this the happier they will be as people, even when they're not getting their way.

 

[Seano]

Its not free speech if you can't exercise it without fear of ruination.

 

[oldshadow]

Sure there are consequences for speaking.

The question is how morally harsh the consequences are.

Right now especially on the left if they don't like what you have to say they think it's fine to try and ruin your life. They will use violence on people they don't believe should be able to speak. Look at colleges where conservatives try to speak and groups force their way in to disrupt and stop the speaker.

If that's morally ok then so be it. The right needs to fight fire with fire. Use the lefts play book and do the same thing.

 

[nostradumbass]

It's not even a complex subject. The problem is that people seem to think that because the government cannot punish them for something then society cannot punish them either. And that's where they're wrong.

The even deeper problem is that people cannot accept when society views what is punishable differently from the individual. Let's say John really likes some obscure comic book. Fucking loves it. But society doesn't care for it. Society writes bad reviews and eventually pushes the comic out of print. That's life. But John simply cannot fathom that society would disagree with his preference so much that society would actually cause the end of that thing.

When that happens John insists that society must keep his comic book in print because he, John, is still interested in reading it.

The world doesn't work that way. Society, live a river, flows in a direction and not everyone is willing to swim with it. They can fight that direction, swim against the current, as much as they want but in the end society will continue to flow as it will. The sooner people realize this the happier they will be as people, even when they're not getting their way.

Lol, hard to believe that was a good analogy in your head. "Society" doesn't print comic books, and it's more like half the country like them, but 7% of people who never read it anyway complain about it on twitter, so the FBI run to the publisher and tells them to stop printing it.

 

[panamaican]

Lol, hard to believe that was a good analogy in your head. "Society" doesn't print comic books, and it's more like half the country like them, but 7% of people who never read it anyway complain about it on twitter, so the FBI run to the publisher and tells them to stop printing it.

Whatever helps you understand the concepts.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

It's a bit situational. Do you have the right to openly criticize the government without punishment from the government? Yes. Do you have the right to chant bomb on a plane or run up and down a court talking over the judge without consequences? No. Do you have a right to not be banned or have posts deleted from a private companies social site if you wanna post content that breaks their rules? No.

 

[Bojka]

It's true. They had freedom of speech in Soviet Russia. Just not freedom from consequence.

In North Korea today, too, they have freedom of speech.

 

[fedoriswar37]

Hate speech is bullshit. Inciting violence isn't the same as saying hurtful things. The consequence to me calling you a fucking liberal moron ( not saying you are) is that you stop talking or block me. Free speech allows everybody to say things no matter how wrong , mean or hurtful they are.

 

[IamStryker]

Sure, you have the freedom to say anything you want, but that also means you must own up to the things you say and be willing to face the consequences for the things you say. And sometimes those consequences are very negative. For example, if I came on here and said all Trump supporters should be rounded up and put in a camp chances are I would be banned or at the very least get double yellows. Or if I threatened to assassinate Biden then chances are the FBI would be breaking down my door. And with that said, you have the right to be a racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic asshole on Twitter and other social media platforms, but other people have the right to call you out on it and those social media companies have the right to suspend or ban you for it. Discuss.

Except the dumb lefties use those labels on anyone who disagrees with them at all. Oh you don't think gender ideology should be taught to children? Transphobe!!!!

 

[58miles]

Hate speech is bullshit. Inciting violence isn't the same as saying hurtful things. The consequence to me calling you a fucking liberal moron ( not saying you are) is that you stop talking or block me. Free speech allows everybody to say things no matter how wrong , mean or hurtful they are.

Yes free speech allows everybody to say things no matter how wrong , mean or hurtful they are when it comes to the government but if you call your boss a fucking liberal moron he is free to fire your ass on the spot.

 

[jeremyemilio]

When did I say I wanted to throw people in jail for using their free speech? Honestly I don't even necessarily think someone should be arrested for threatening to kill the president, unless there is strong evidence that said person will actually attempt to carry out that threat and it's not just a bunch of hot air. So if anything I want more free speech in some cases. And free speech has been a legal issue forever, that's why we have lawyers who specialize in the first amendment.

I didn't say that you wanted to throw people in jail. I was simply pointing out that the "freedom of speech doesn't equal freedom from consequences" talking point isn't some sort of universal truth. It depends on the consequences.

Also, yes freedom of speech is a legal issue. But it's not JUST a legal issue. It's a moral and philosophical issue as well. Which is why some of us champion and value freedom of speech even in contexts where it's not legally protected.

If I have a conversation with someone in my own home and they start saying things I disagree with, I have the legal right to kick them out of my house. But as someone who believes in freedom of speech beyond mere legalities I wouldn't be inclined to do that (outside of someone being aggressive or belligerent). Some people would. Which is fine, I suppose. But to then hide behind some glib statement like "freedom of speech doesn't equal freedom from consequences" really doesn't cut it for me.

I'm not going to think of you as a freedom of speech champion if you shut down speech you disagree with in every circumstance where you have the legal right to do so. Sorry.

 

[jeremyemilio]

It's not even a complex subject. The problem is that people seem to think that because the government cannot punish them for something then society cannot punish them either. And that's where they're wrong.

The even deeper problem is that people cannot accept when society views what is punishable differently from the individual. Let's say John really likes some obscure comic book. Fucking loves it. But society doesn't care for it. Society writes bad reviews and eventually pushes the comic out of print. That's life. But John simply cannot fathom that society would disagree with his preference so much that society would actually cause the end of that thing.

When that happens John insists that society must keep his comic book in print because he, John, is still interested in reading it.

The world doesn't work that way. Society, live a river, flows in a direction and not everyone is willing to swim with it. They can fight that direction, swim against the current, as much as they want but in the end society will continue to flow as it will. The sooner people realize this the happier they will be as people, even when they're not getting their way.

Your comic book analogy is actually very helpful. Three different scenarios:

1. If society doesn't like the comic book, and so society doesn't buy the comic book, and so the comic book goes out of print, then I agree with you. Tough cookies for John. Tough cookies for the comic book creator. Tough cookies for the publisher.

2. If powerful people in society don't like the comic book, and so government raids the publisher, shuts it down, puts the creator in jail, and hunts down stray versions of the comic book fining or jailing John or anyone else who might be found with one in their possession, then it seems you and I still agree that's a clear violation of free speech and (in the US) of the First Amendment.

3. If mainstream society doesn't like the comic book but it has an alternate audience that includes John that keeps it viable, but then society starts campaigning to get the book pulled from the shelves, boycotting the publisher and stores that carry it, protesting and maligning the creator until it just becomes an infeasible task to continue, then that's where I feel like you and I may part ways. You seem to feel that's fair game because it doesn't violate the First Amendment. I would suggest that it's not fair game, is highly immoral, and is an assault on free speech principles, even though it doesn't violate the First Amendment.

Finding ways to shut down speech and voices with which you disagree, legal though your methods may be, is both trashy and unethical behaviour. People should be ashamed of said behaviour. People framing that behaviour as being somehow free speech friendly in that it somehow champions some sort of "counter free speech" rights are only bullshitting themselves and everyone around them. True free speech advocates believe in letting people have their say, even when they strongly disagree with what is being said.

 

[Allosaurus Fragillis]

I didn't say that you wanted to throw people in jail. I was simply pointing out that the "freedom of speech doesn't equal freedom from consequences" talking point isn't some sort of universal truth. It depends on the consequences.

Also, yes freedom of speech is a legal issue. But it's not JUST a legal issue. It's a moral and philosophical issue as well. Which is why some of us champion and value freedom of speech even in contexts where it's not legally protected.

If I have a conversation with someone in my own home and they start saying things I disagree with, I have the legal right to kick them out of my house. But as someone who believes in freedom of speech beyond mere legalities I wouldn't be inclined to do that (outside of someone was being aggressive or belligerent). Some people would. Which is fine, I suppose. But to then hide behind some glib statement like "freedom of speech doesn't equal freedom from consequences" really doesn't cut it for me.

I'm not going to think of you as a freedom of speech champion if you shut down speech you disagree with in every circumstance where you have the legal right to do so. Sorry.

Well I don't value free speech beyond the legal aspect of it tbh. If someone comes into my home and says something I disagree with I'm not going to just jump straight into kicking them out but if they keep saying it even after I tell them to keep it to themselves then yeah I probably will kick them out. Good thing I never claimed to be a freedom of speech champion then.

 

[AWilder]

Sure, you have the freedom to say anything you want, but that also means you must own up to the things you say and be willing to face the consequences for the things you say. And sometimes those consequences are very negative. For example, if I came on here and said all Trump supporters should be rounded up and put in a camp chances are I would be banned or at the very least get double yellows. Or if I threatened to assassinate Biden then chances are the FBI would be breaking down my door. And with that said, you have the right to be a racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic asshole on Twitter and other social media platforms, but other people have the right to call you out on it and those social media companies have the right to suspend or ban you for it. Discuss.

Tell me you got banned from Twitter without telling me you got banned from Twitter

 

[jeremyemilio]

Well I don't value free speech beyond the legal aspect of it tbh. If someone comes into my home and says something I disagree with I'm not going to just jump straight into kicking them out but if they keep saying it even after I tell them to keep it to themselves then yeah I probably will kick them out. Good thing I never claimed to be a freedom of speech champion then.

It is a good thing that you never claimed to be a freedom of speech champion. Not everyone is.

But for those of us who are, freedom of speech does mean something, and have value, beyond the legal aspect. Otherwise, not only is it difficult to critique people who shut down speech as a social activity, but it also becomes very difficult to critique nations that muzzle speech through authoritarian government and law enforcement measures, since by definition those nations don't have free speech legal protections.

 

[Two Crows]

The point of freedom of speech is to allow open expression without being harmed by it. Narrowing it down to "well, these massive corporations will unperson you for wrongthink BUT at least it's not the government" goes against the whole idea.

It's definitely a problem.

There are no prescriptions for dealing with them because media companies in the 20th/21st century have power/reach/ability that simply did not exist before.

Even if we restrict the situation to political argument alone, it's a problem.

 

[Super_Nintendo]

"Freedom of speech doesn't equal freedom from consequences"

This is a line straight from the woke playbook. It's just code for supporting cancel culture and political correctness, which is awful for everyone.

 

[Bald1]

Surely it equals freedom from SOME consequences, though, no?

You can't call it free speech if you are throwing people in jail as a "consequence" for using their free speech, can you? (Using a threat on the life of a sitting president as an example really doesn't do it here.

Beyond this, I do find it odd that suddenly many people see free speech as nothing more than a legal issue describing the relationship between government and its interests, and citizens and their voices. Surely there's a principle of free speech that goes beyond that? A philosophy that is inclined to champion fair and free exchange beyond the scope of mere legal protections?

Spoiler

I call it civilian censorship. Used to be called black listing. Now it falls under cancel culture. Whatever it is, it's intolerance for others ideas and it's all in the same ballpark. It always comes from a place of moral superiority but it seldom actually is

Those in the drivers seat (dumb, selfish, insecure and short sighted people) always use it then cry about it when used against them. You'd think we'd have this figured out by now.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

Sure, you have the freedom to say anything you want, but that also means you must own up to the things you say and be willing to face the consequences for the things you say. And sometimes those consequences are very negative. For example, if I came on here and said all Trump supporters should be rounded up and put in a camp chances are I would be banned or at the very least get double yellows. Or if I threatened to assassinate Biden then chances are the FBI would be breaking down my door.

this doesnt really pertain to free speech, but the kind of weird shit ive looked up on google and the bizarre categories of legal porn ive browsed through in my time, im surprised if i aint on some kind of funky watch list lol. i aint worried about the feds or anything. i'm worried about a bunch of therapists kicking down my door.