3 ms·

Wrong. You're arguing that only the Damores of the world can express themselves, and no one else is allowed to express themselves in reaction to that. You're ar

Wrong. You're arguing that only the Damores of the world can express themselves, and no one else is allowed to express themselves in reaction to that. You're arguing not for free speech, but speech that's free from consequences.

ThrowawayR2 8y ago
> You're arguing not for free speech, but speech that's free from consequences Ah, I'm delighted to see that I'm getting somewhere. Yes, I am indeed arguing for free speech that's also free from consequences; one of the core values of classical liberalism that sprang from the Enlightenment. Freedom of speech doesn't mean much if actually exercising it invites repression and it does not matter in the slightest whether that repression comes from a government or from an outraged public. An analogy with Jeanette Rankin comes to mind, though not precisely a speech issue; she was the sole member of the US Congress to vote against entry into WWII after the Pearl Harbor attack because of her staunch pacifist convications. After the vote she was forced to take shelter inside a phone booth until police could escort her home. According to modern liberals, she should have faced the "consequences" (your word, not mine), no matter how horrific, since they weren't coming from the government. Note that I don't even agree with her action but, as the old quote goes "I (may) disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "Yes, I am indeed arguing for speech that's free from consequences" Which boils down to you arguing that no one else should have free speech. "According to modern liberals, she should have faced the "consequences" (your word, not mine), no matter how horrific, since they weren't coming from the government." When you imply that I am advocating violence like that, then you have proven that you are not discussing in good faith. You are not trying to have a discussion, you are just trying to be "right".
  - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
    Claiming that I am arguing that "no one else should have free speech" and that I am "not discussing in good faith" in the same breath? Well, I don't know how to respond to that...
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      If you are saying that I should not be able to respond to someone else's speech, including a response of choosing not to associate with that person any longer, then you are saying that I should not have free speech. If you are saying that I am advocating violence as a "consequence", then you are not discussing in good faith.
      - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
        > including a response of choosing not to associate with that person any longer Individuals and businesses already have restrictions on their freedom of association already, the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Fair Housing Act of 1968 that require businesses and landlords / property sellers to serve people in protected classes being prime examples. So, yes, you could say that I am just as much in favor of restricting the freedom of association for businesses and landlords to preserve equality for protected classes as I am interested in restricting the freedom of association for common telecoms carriers and social media businesses to preserve freedom of speech.
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        So you're admitting you're not in favor of freedom of speech. Now we're just arguing over who you believe deserves protection, and how far that protection should go.
        ThrowawayR2 8y ago
        > You're arguing that only the Damores of the world can express themselves... > Which boils down to you arguing that no one else should have free speech. > So you're admitting you're not in favor of freedom of speech. All you've done in this conversation is attempt to put words in my mouth while at the same time saying I'm the one not speaking in good faith. I see no benefit to continuing this discussion. I've presented my reasoning, analogies, and historical precedents to the best of my humble abilities. Let the readers decide.
- nxmehta 8y ago
  > Yes, I am indeed arguing for free speech that's also free from consequences I don't often see someone actually owning up to this view - good for you. I'm not sure how it's possible to enforce speech that is free from consequences. Do you have a specific definition of "consequence" that you'd like to elaborate on? Anything could be a consequence (like, just hearing the speech in the first place). What is it specifically that you're trying to protect against?
  - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
    > I don't often see someone actually owning up to this view - good for you. Not sure if you meant it this way but "owning up" sounds like it's something to be ashamed of. I'm quite proud of being a classical liberal and supporting free speech even if it does unfortunately mean that some not very nice people also get to their say their piece. > Do you have a specific definition of "consequence" that you'd like to elaborate on? Anything could be a consequence (like, just hearing the speech in the first place). The parent poster is the one that introduced the word "consequences" into the discussion (as I was careful to note in my response) so I refer your question to him/her. Judging by the approval with which s/he speaks of Danmore's firing, it seems rather improbable that it's benign to the recipient though.

ThrowawayR2 8y ago

> You're arguing not for free speech, but speech that's free from consequences Ah, I'm delighted to see that I'm getting somewhere. Yes, I am indeed arguing for free speech that's also free from consequences; one of the core values of classical liberalism that sprang from the Enlightenment. Freedom of speech doesn't mean much if actually exercising it invites repression and it does not matter in the slightest whether that repression comes from a government or from an outraged public. An analogy with Jeanette Rankin comes to mind, though not precisely a speech issue; she was the sole member of the US Congress to vote against entry into WWII after the Pearl Harbor attack because of her staunch pacifist convications. After the vote she was forced to take shelter inside a phone booth until police could escort her home. According to modern liberals, she should have faced the "consequences" (your word, not mine), no matter how horrific, since they weren't coming from the government. Note that I don't even agree with her action but, as the old quote goes "I (may) disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

s73v3r_ 8y ago
"Yes, I am indeed arguing for speech that's free from consequences" Which boils down to you arguing that no one else should have free speech. "According to modern liberals, she should have faced the "consequences" (your word, not mine), no matter how horrific, since they weren't coming from the government." When you imply that I am advocating violence like that, then you have proven that you are not discussing in good faith. You are not trying to have a discussion, you are just trying to be "right".
- ThrowawayR2 8y ago
  Claiming that I am arguing that "no one else should have free speech" and that I am "not discussing in good faith" in the same breath? Well, I don't know how to respond to that...
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    If you are saying that I should not be able to respond to someone else's speech, including a response of choosing not to associate with that person any longer, then you are saying that I should not have free speech. If you are saying that I am advocating violence as a "consequence", then you are not discussing in good faith.
    - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
      > including a response of choosing not to associate with that person any longer Individuals and businesses already have restrictions on their freedom of association already, the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Fair Housing Act of 1968 that require businesses and landlords / property sellers to serve people in protected classes being prime examples. So, yes, you could say that I am just as much in favor of restricting the freedom of association for businesses and landlords to preserve equality for protected classes as I am interested in restricting the freedom of association for common telecoms carriers and social media businesses to preserve freedom of speech.
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        So you're admitting you're not in favor of freedom of speech. Now we're just arguing over who you believe deserves protection, and how far that protection should go.
        ThrowawayR2 8y ago
        > You're arguing that only the Damores of the world can express themselves... > Which boils down to you arguing that no one else should have free speech. > So you're admitting you're not in favor of freedom of speech. All you've done in this conversation is attempt to put words in my mouth while at the same time saying I'm the one not speaking in good faith. I see no benefit to continuing this discussion. I've presented my reasoning, analogies, and historical precedents to the best of my humble abilities. Let the readers decide.
nxmehta 8y ago
> Yes, I am indeed arguing for free speech that's also free from consequences I don't often see someone actually owning up to this view - good for you. I'm not sure how it's possible to enforce speech that is free from consequences. Do you have a specific definition of "consequence" that you'd like to elaborate on? Anything could be a consequence (like, just hearing the speech in the first place). What is it specifically that you're trying to protect against?
- ThrowawayR2 8y ago
  > I don't often see someone actually owning up to this view - good for you. Not sure if you meant it this way but "owning up" sounds like it's something to be ashamed of. I'm quite proud of being a classical liberal and supporting free speech even if it does unfortunately mean that some not very nice people also get to their say their piece. > Do you have a specific definition of "consequence" that you'd like to elaborate on? Anything could be a consequence (like, just hearing the speech in the first place). The parent poster is the one that introduced the word "consequences" into the discussion (as I was careful to note in my response) so I refer your question to him/her. Judging by the approval with which s/he speaks of Danmore's firing, it seems rather improbable that it's benign to the recipient though.