4 ms·

> There has always been a difference between freedom to say what you want and freedom from consequences. No. Free speech is speech which is (at least largely)

> There has always been a difference between freedom to say what you want and freedom from consequences. No. Free speech is speech which is (at least largely) free of consequence. Not just free of legal consequences either, but social consequences as well (such as getting fired from your job for having certain political opinions). Free speech =/= first amendment. > The famous adage “you can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.” Which was used as justification to punish anti-war protesters. > Newspapers are liable for libel suits and other legal remedies if they publish false and damaging information. Which is part of a set of well known, long-standing exceptions to the first amendment.

vharuck 6y ago
>Free speech is speech which is (at least largely) free of consequence. Only useless speech comes with no consequences. It's pretty much a tautology. I don't see how your definition of "free speech" is useful. In what world would it ever exist?
- lliamander 6y ago
  Perhaps I wasn't clear. Unless you can voice an opinion with which others disagree without legal or serious social consequences, you do not have free speech.
amanaplanacanal 6y ago
Most people probably don't push their definition of free speech that far. If I kick someone out of my house because they are being an asshole, that doesn't feel like an infringement on their free speech to me.
- lliamander 6y ago
  I didn't say "absolutely" free of consequence, I said "largely". No one is debating about whether you can kick someone out of your house. The kind of "social consequences" that I (and others) are concerned about are things like: - being fired from a job - blacklisted by an industry - canceled by a payment processor - being kicked out of a university Imposing financial consequences for having a difference of opinion is a very insidious way of manipulating public speech. It doesn't actually change people's minds, and is a great way to get preference falsification (like what was seen in the 2016 U.S. presidential election).

vharuck 6y ago

>Free speech is speech which is (at least largely) free of consequence. Only useless speech comes with no consequences. It's pretty much a tautology. I don't see how your definition of "free speech" is useful. In what world would it ever exist?

lliamander 6y ago
Perhaps I wasn't clear. Unless you can voice an opinion with which others disagree without legal or serious social consequences, you do not have free speech.

amanaplanacanal 6y ago

Most people probably don't push their definition of free speech that far. If I kick someone out of my house because they are being an asshole, that doesn't feel like an infringement on their free speech to me.

lliamander 6y ago
I didn't say "absolutely" free of consequence, I said "largely". No one is debating about whether you can kick someone out of your house. The kind of "social consequences" that I (and others) are concerned about are things like: - being fired from a job - blacklisted by an industry - canceled by a payment processor - being kicked out of a university Imposing financial consequences for having a difference of opinion is a very insidious way of manipulating public speech. It doesn't actually change people's minds, and is a great way to get preference falsification (like what was seen in the 2016 U.S. presidential election).