> confusing social consequences of speech with legality If people went to a certain country and they said "We have freedom from self incrimination, just as the

> confusing social consequences of speech with legality If people went to a certain country and they said "We have freedom from self incrimination, just as the US does; the government is not allowed to force a confession from an alleged criminal. However, the victim and their family or friends may force a confession from the alleged criminal in any way they please.", then those people would undoubtedly say "Your country does not have freedom from self incrimination at all!" If people went to a certain country and they said "We have freedom of speech, just as the US does; the government is not allowed to suppress or tamper with what an individual says. However, those who disagree with what they said may inflict 'social consequences' on that individual until their lives are ruined.", then people would undoubtedly say ...? In short, it should be blindingly obvious that freedom of speech includes both protection from government intervention as well as protection from members of the public who seek to inflict harm^H^H^H^H"social consequences" because they disagree with what was said. It is dismaying that a man of Randall Munroe's intelligence should make such a blatant logical error in his comic. Sadly, it's not even the only error in that comic.