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

[K1levelgrappler]

Pretty sure it’s in the constitution that you can act like a dumb piece of shit all the time and nothing bad can ever happen to you

 

[Jack V Savage]

The examples you use are, to my mind, not purely freedom of speech related (although there is some overlap). Your bringing in other domains, such as abuse (cursing at children) and harassment (walking up to a woman you don't know and calling her disgusting names).

I'm not that sort of free speech advocate. I realize that some people are, but like you I don't think that sort of approach is at all compatible with civilization. Nor is it compatible with true liberalism, which holds the dignity and equality of fellow humans as a keystone principle.

This is not at all what I'm discussing. A more apt example for me would be someone speaking in a public space (sans threat and sans harassments, because those are different issues) and others literally shouting them down to ensure that their ideas cannot be heard. I see that as illiberal behaviour.

Now let's be entirely clear, here, because this is the part that I think you and @Jack V Savage are not registering about my stance on this. I'm not arguing that it should be illegal to shout someone down. Nor am I arguing that government has any business in this interaction at all. I'm simply arguing that people who do these sorts of things are acting in ways that are at odds with the liberal principle of valuing free speech.

Also, it comes as no shock that not everyone values free speech. To value free speech, regardless of whether one agrees with the message being spoken, has been a minority position since the beginning of human history. It's the hypocrisy and twisting of ideas surrounding freedom of expression principles that I'm critiquing (as you also do above). For instance:

1. Shouting someone down and then claiming that doing so is an act compatible with free speech principles because said principles give you the right to freely express yourself through shouting. Yes, you are legally protected. Shouting is absolutely your right. But you are not using that right in the advancement of free expression. You are using it, quiet literally, to stifle the expression of someone else. If that's how you want to behave, have at it. But don't dress it up as free speech and present yourself as a free speech advocate.

2. Using glib catch phrases like "freedom of speech doesn't equal freedom from consequences." To an extent, that's exactly what freedom of speech equals. Or at least certain types of consequences. Firing someone from their job for something they said may well be legal, and it may even be appropriate. But that doesn't make it compatible with the spirit of valuing freedom of expression, at least in that context. It's even possible that in that context freedom of expression isn't appropriate. But that's not the same as trying to twist the very definitions of words and concepts to suggest that meting out consequences for speech is a mechanism of free speech.

For a concrete example, I'm a teacher. I am not permitted to name kids that I teach and bash them on social media. If I do, I'll be penalized and possibly even fired for it. That's exactly as it ought to be. Free speech is absolutely not a cover for that sort of behaviour because me being free to publicly speak my mind on my own students simply isn't appropriate in that context. To paint that reality as being "free speech with consequences," though, is twisting the concept of free speech entirely. What's really happening is that in that situation I do not have free speech, nor should I.

3. Pretending to be a free speech advocate and then engaging in behaviour that belies that claim. I don't report people on Sherdog, for instance, even though it's entirely within my rights to do so. I don't do it because I believe in allowing people to have their say, even when I disagree with or am offended by what they say. Not everyone is like me that way, and that's okay. It really is. But I would argue (am arguing) that aside from reporting egregious behaviour that steps well over the lines discussed above that move into threats or abuse or harassment, reporting posts that offend one's sensibilities is an anti-free speech act. Which, again, is one's prerogative. But just own it.

Again, the issue here is that I think you're badly misunderstanding the principle of *freedom* of speech. Omerta on a message board has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech. Nor does shouting. Preventing someone from speaking (through violence, threats, arguably firing) does. If you have some kind of personal value that not only should everyone (?) be free to speak, but that all opinions and factual claims should be welcome in all settings, that is fine (well, stupid and impossible to maintain consistently, but you do you), but it's not a freedom of speech issue. I know how this goes. I point out the contradiction in calling for some people's speech to be curtailed or compelled in order to satisfy others', and you say that you don't think it should be a legal thing--just that we should maybe try to lean on people to listen to everyone, not realizing that that leaning is just as much of an infringement on your principle as any other leaning.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm confused. You've tagged me, and then laid out a critique of a host of ideas I've never once advocated for in my life, nor do I believe in.

Twitter (like any social media platform) has every right to turn away any commentator it likes. Nor have I ever demanded that every (or any) particular forum must carry anyone's words. Everything you describe here is entirely foreign to me and my views.

I think this is kind of playing dumb. You're saying that it's an attack on freedom of speech as a principle to in any way turn away commentators on a particular site, no? I understand that you're not someone who believes the gov't should get involved in forcing sites to host content that they do not want to host, but you're still suggesting that they have some sort of moral duty to host all content, are you not? That is still wrong.

Also, I may have some libertarian leanings, but only where the ideas overlap with orthodox liberalism. My view on freedom of speech is especially liberal. It conforms with the views of the likes of Rushdie, Vonnegut, Atwood, et al. Everything I've expressed in this thread is in keeping with long held and very well defined liberal free speech principles.

You're citing names but not arguments. Vonnegut would, I'm sure, argue that Nazis should be allowed to speak without going to jail or being deported (which, of course, I agree with), but not that every college is obliged to invite them and give them an audience or that every website has to host them.

 

[Allosaurus Fragillis]

When I see a post like this I wonder who the person posting thinks they are and who they think they are talking to. Are you the divinely chosen arbiter of truth? And is it within your purview to burn sinners for their blasphemy?

If someone is breaking clear cut, reasonable, and evenly enforced rules then fine. But that is not all that is happening. The left is in the habit if pushing highly questionable rules and changing them on the fly, and distorting the facts, and in many cases outright lying about people. There is also plenty of asymmetric enforcement on social media and increasingly in sectors like finance. Having views and being in businesses disfavored by the left (as opposed to doing clear cut measurable harm) is enough to lose everything.

And you might be smug about it now. You may even get a sadistic thrill when you see people you dislike getting ruined. But just wait until they do it to you. Don't assume it won't happen.

Nah, I'm just a guy who is tired of the right thinking they can be bigoted assholes on social media or spread insane conspiracy theories like the claim that the last presidential election was "rigged" without suffering any repercussions for it. And sorry, I can't take you seriously as a "free speech warrior" when your side wants to make it illegal for gay/lesbian teachers to bring pictures of their significant others to school, and when you boycott Disney movies made for 8 year olds because they changed the skin tone of a character from a fairytale.

 

[OldBoy91]

Very original. I definitely come to sherdog to hear dime a dozen twitter and reddit "hot" takes. Thanks TS.

 

[RogerB08]

I agree with you TS the problem is there is a double standard for people on the Left. Thev are protected

Eminem, Jimmy Kimmel, Howard Stern are the big ones

Define protected.

 

[Goonerview]

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.

Didn’t Madonna threaten to blow up the White House when Trump was elected?

Didn’t Kathy Griffin hold up a mock severed head of Donald Trump, a sitting president at the time?

What consequences do you think these people should get?

Also, if people did the same acts against Obama, do you think that they would get the same consequences?

 

[Allosaurus Fragillis]

Didn’t Madonna threaten to blow up the White House when Trump was elected?

Didn’t Kathy Griffin hold up a mock severed head of Donald Trump, a sitting president at the time?

What consequences do you think these people should get?

Also, if people did the same acts against Obama, do you think that they would get the same consequences?

Didn't Kathy Griffin pretty much get "canceled" for holding up that Trump head? I didn't hear about the Madonna thing so I'm going to have to take your word on that one. Nothing, as I said earlier in this thread I don't even really think someone should be arrested for threatening the president unless there is clear evidence that they will actually carry out that threat. I was just using that as an example. Probably, there has always been a different legal system in this country for the rich and powerful, regardless who is president. That's why I'm a Marxist, I actually want everyone to be treated equally under the law.

 

[flashNsmash]

Nah, I'm just a guy who is tired of the right thinking they can be bigoted assholes on social media or spread insane conspiracy theories like the claim that the last presidential election was "rigged" without suffering any repercussions for it. And sorry, I can't take you seriously as a "free speech warrior" when your side wants to make it illegal for gay/lesbian teachers to bring pictures of their significant others to school, and when you boycott Disney movies made for 8 year olds because they changed the skin tone of a character from a fairytale.

so what do you think should happen to stacy 'M1A2' abrams for doing the same?