3 ms·

> 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 no

> 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.