4 ms·

A lot of "free speech advocates" like to engage in redefinition when it comes to free speech. It becomes some ill-defined ideal that's basically "freedom from

A lot of "free speech advocates" like to engage in redefinition when it comes to free speech. It becomes some ill-defined ideal that's basically "freedom from consequences of speech" instead of the strict legal definition.

yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
> freedom from consequences of speech Obviously? Freedom of speech that doesn't protect you from consequences, ex. prison time, is an utterly worthless "freedom".
- woodruffw 6y ago
  I think this is a (willful) misunderstanding of what "consequences" means in the context of the freedom of expression. "Consequences," colloquially understood, are interpersonal repercussions in one's public and private life. They're a necessary part of the freedom of expression: such a freedom wouldn't be very useful if exercising it had no consequences. They don't include prison time. Everybody wants those consequences to be personally beneficial, but that's not embedded within the right itself (and can't be, as that would result in a contradiction in terms between equally just and/or lawful expressions).
  - apostacy 6y ago
    > "Consequences," colloquially understood, are interpersonal repercussions in one's public and private life. They're a necessary part of the freedom of expression: such a freedom wouldn't be very useful if exercising it had no consequences. They don't include prison time. Context matters. Whenever I have heard someone saying that there will be "consequences" for your speech, it is usually a threat. If someone threatens you with targeted harassment for your speech, they are a criminal. Someone coercing you and trying to induce you into silence is not a legitimate consequence of speech. It sounds like you are excusing online hate mobs.
    - woodruffw 6y ago
      > Whenever I have heard someone saying that there will be "consequences" for your speech, it is usually a threat. At the risk of being a little flippant: yes. It is a "threat," in the sense that it's an explicit communication that someone is going to be displeased if you say the thing that you've been telegraphing. The "threat" is that you might not be able to rely on their (or their community's) implicit social approbation in the future. In the context of things like racism, this feels like an awfully mild threat. > If someone threatens you with targeted harassment for your speech, they are a criminal. Someone coercing you and trying to induce you into silence is not a legitimate consequence of speech. It sounds like you are excusing online hate mobs. I'm not excusing anyone. Freedom of expression is symmetric: anybody who belongs to an "online hate mob" is going to face the consequence of me not wanting to interact with them. For all I know, that's what they want too!
      - apostacy 6y ago
        > At the risk of being a little flippant: yes. It is a "threat," in the sense that it's an explicit communication that someone is going to be displeased if you say the thing that you've been telegraphing. The "threat" is that you might not be able to rely on their (or their community's) implicit social approbation in the future. In the context of things like racism, this feels like an awfully mild threat. So you agree with me that people who say that are not sincere, and not legitimate. Threats are actually not a valid consequence of speech. Do you understand that the whole "not freedom from consequence" platitude is essentially just telling an assault victim that it is their fault, because assault is just a "consequence" of walking around in public. "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence" = "Shut up or you will be punished" That's probably what Harvey Weinstein or Jefferey Epstein told his victims. And if you say something like that, you are probably a bad person.
        woodruffw 6y ago
        > So you agree with me that people who say that are not sincere, and not legitimate. I don’t agree, sorry. They seem perfectly sincere; I’m not sure what you mean by “legitimate” in this context (what would “legitimate” behavior look like here? Never disengaging from another person’s attempt at a conversation, no matter how absurd the priors are? This doesn’t feel like a reasonable standard to demand of others.) I put “threat” in scare-quotes because I thought it was obvious that this isn’t really a threat in any meaningful sense. Equating it to abuse is specious and distasteful.
thoraway1010 6y ago
Actually - usually it's requiring others to promote, pay for or echo their speech. I'm free to speak, and make you speak what I want, and pay for my speech, but YOU can't make me say things I don't want to. Huh? Stand on a soapbox. Get a group together to promote your ideas. You can do all of this without going to jail, but google doesn't have to pay huge amounts to pump out your BS.

yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago

> freedom from consequences of speech Obviously? Freedom of speech that doesn't protect you from consequences, ex. prison time, is an utterly worthless "freedom".

woodruffw 6y ago
I think this is a (willful) misunderstanding of what "consequences" means in the context of the freedom of expression. "Consequences," colloquially understood, are interpersonal repercussions in one's public and private life. They're a necessary part of the freedom of expression: such a freedom wouldn't be very useful if exercising it had no consequences. They don't include prison time. Everybody wants those consequences to be personally beneficial, but that's not embedded within the right itself (and can't be, as that would result in a contradiction in terms between equally just and/or lawful expressions).
- apostacy 6y ago
  > "Consequences," colloquially understood, are interpersonal repercussions in one's public and private life. They're a necessary part of the freedom of expression: such a freedom wouldn't be very useful if exercising it had no consequences. They don't include prison time. Context matters. Whenever I have heard someone saying that there will be "consequences" for your speech, it is usually a threat. If someone threatens you with targeted harassment for your speech, they are a criminal. Someone coercing you and trying to induce you into silence is not a legitimate consequence of speech. It sounds like you are excusing online hate mobs.
  - woodruffw 6y ago
    > Whenever I have heard someone saying that there will be "consequences" for your speech, it is usually a threat. At the risk of being a little flippant: yes. It is a "threat," in the sense that it's an explicit communication that someone is going to be displeased if you say the thing that you've been telegraphing. The "threat" is that you might not be able to rely on their (or their community's) implicit social approbation in the future. In the context of things like racism, this feels like an awfully mild threat. > If someone threatens you with targeted harassment for your speech, they are a criminal. Someone coercing you and trying to induce you into silence is not a legitimate consequence of speech. It sounds like you are excusing online hate mobs. I'm not excusing anyone. Freedom of expression is symmetric: anybody who belongs to an "online hate mob" is going to face the consequence of me not wanting to interact with them. For all I know, that's what they want too!
    - apostacy 6y ago
      > At the risk of being a little flippant: yes. It is a "threat," in the sense that it's an explicit communication that someone is going to be displeased if you say the thing that you've been telegraphing. The "threat" is that you might not be able to rely on their (or their community's) implicit social approbation in the future. In the context of things like racism, this feels like an awfully mild threat. So you agree with me that people who say that are not sincere, and not legitimate. Threats are actually not a valid consequence of speech. Do you understand that the whole "not freedom from consequence" platitude is essentially just telling an assault victim that it is their fault, because assault is just a "consequence" of walking around in public. "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence" = "Shut up or you will be punished" That's probably what Harvey Weinstein or Jefferey Epstein told his victims. And if you say something like that, you are probably a bad person.
      - woodruffw 6y ago
        > So you agree with me that people who say that are not sincere, and not legitimate. I don’t agree, sorry. They seem perfectly sincere; I’m not sure what you mean by “legitimate” in this context (what would “legitimate” behavior look like here? Never disengaging from another person’s attempt at a conversation, no matter how absurd the priors are? This doesn’t feel like a reasonable standard to demand of others.) I put “threat” in scare-quotes because I thought it was obvious that this isn’t really a threat in any meaningful sense. Equating it to abuse is specious and distasteful.

thoraway1010 6y ago

Actually - usually it's requiring others to promote, pay for or echo their speech. I'm free to speak, and make you speak what I want, and pay for my speech, but YOU can't make me say things I don't want to. Huh? Stand on a soapbox. Get a group together to promote your ideas. You can do all of this without going to jail, but google doesn't have to pay huge amounts to pump out your BS.