> Threats are actually not a valid consequence of speech. Not sure what you mean by "valid". Sounds like a moral stance. Thoughts are a consequence of speech.

> Threats are actually not a valid consequence of speech. Not sure what you mean by "valid". Sounds like a moral stance. Thoughts are a consequence of speech. A threat is an expression of a thought. > Do you understand that the whole "not freedom from consequence" platitude is essentially just telling an assault victim that it is their fault No, it does not. Trying to abridge expression, to prevent misinterpretation is impractical. Defensively speaking to that end, is not an element to free speech. It's specifically in opposition. > "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence" = "Shut up or you will be punished" Or you will be rewarded. > That's probably what Harvey Weinstein or Jefferey Epstein told his victims. I'm glad you have the right to express your beliefs, although I disagree with how you interpret speech. Just because someone acts virtuously or within their rights, does not mean they are given privilege, nor guarantee that they will be rewarded, nor guaranteed that there will be no retribution. Speech rights do not solve imbalances of power. The philosophy of free speech, as I understand it, is not about individuals per se. Over time, enough people will have enough opportunity to solve their own problems (including power imbalance), by cultural change.