2 ms·

Obviously people want freedom from consequences of their speech. That's what freedom of speech means. What kind of "freedom of speech" would it be if you were i

Obviously people want freedom from consequences of their speech. That's what freedom of speech means. What kind of "freedom of speech" would it be if you were instantly killed upon uttering any criticism of the great leader? Obviously you wouldn't have freedom of speech in that situation because the consequences would be so dire nobody would speak up. Who, exactly, in this case is trying to suppress other people's freedom of speech, or freedom of association? Is PragerU trying to get liberal channels shut down? I don't believe they are; this is a non-sequiteur used try and cast victims of oppression as oppressors themselves.

rodgerd 7y ago
> Who, exactly, in this case is trying to suppress other people's freedom of speech, or freedom of association? The case is trying to force YouTube to associate with PraegerU.
shadowgovt 7y ago
It doesn't take a lot of consideration to conclude that total freedom from consequences of speech is akin to all parties pretending that the offending speech was simply never said, which defeats the purpose of speech itself in the first place. So we can conclude that people want freedom from specific consequences of speech, not all consequences. Once that distinction is made, one can argue about which consequences one should be free of. US law, for example, strictly ties the government's right to censor (i.e. being killed upon uttering any criticism of great leader is out-of-bounds) but the also-present freedom of the press and freedom of association implies private individuals' rights to refrain from sharing information or associating with various entities, and there is a, perhaps questionable, expedient that extends those rights from individuals to corporations in the US (being fired upon uttering public criticism of dear CEO is, except for specific carve-outs mostly paid for in blood during union strikes, acceptable; a corporation is not the government and has no obligation to continue to serve an employee at odds with the corporation and what it stands for, while governments have no such luxury and must serve even their "malcontents").
wpietri 7y ago
The right YouTube has here is freedom of association. PragerU, in asking a court to continue to host them, is saying YouTube shouldn't have that right with respect to them. More generally, the "BUT MAH FREEEEDOMZ" argument comes up in response to criticism or social consequences like shunning. E.g., Person A turns out to be a pseudonym-using prominent white supremacist. When revealed, they receive a heap of public criticism and are fired, because their boss does not want to employ somebody who thinks other employees should be killed. Some will claim that people should not say unkind things to/about Person A, and that Person A should be able to keep their job. But that impinges on the free speech of the critics, and the right to freedom of association of the employer.

rodgerd 7y ago

> Who, exactly, in this case is trying to suppress other people's freedom of speech, or freedom of association? The case is trying to force YouTube to associate with PraegerU.

shadowgovt 7y ago

It doesn't take a lot of consideration to conclude that total freedom from consequences of speech is akin to all parties pretending that the offending speech was simply never said, which defeats the purpose of speech itself in the first place. So we can conclude that people want freedom from specific consequences of speech, not all consequences. Once that distinction is made, one can argue about which consequences one should be free of. US law, for example, strictly ties the government's right to censor (i.e. being killed upon uttering any criticism of great leader is out-of-bounds) but the also-present freedom of the press and freedom of association implies private individuals' rights to refrain from sharing information or associating with various entities, and there is a, perhaps questionable, expedient that extends those rights from individuals to corporations in the US (being fired upon uttering public criticism of dear CEO is, except for specific carve-outs mostly paid for in blood during union strikes, acceptable; a corporation is not the government and has no obligation to continue to serve an employee at odds with the corporation and what it stands for, while governments have no such luxury and must serve even their "malcontents").

wpietri 7y ago

The right YouTube has here is freedom of association. PragerU, in asking a court to continue to host them, is saying YouTube shouldn't have that right with respect to them. More generally, the "BUT MAH FREEEEDOMZ" argument comes up in response to criticism or social consequences like shunning. E.g., Person A turns out to be a pseudonym-using prominent white supremacist. When revealed, they receive a heap of public criticism and are fired, because their boss does not want to employ somebody who thinks other employees should be killed. Some will claim that people should not say unkind things to/about Person A, and that Person A should be able to keep their job. But that impinges on the free speech of the critics, and the right to freedom of association of the employer.