7 ms·

Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech. What planet do you live on that you think everyone else should have to both listen to what yo

by tw04 6y ago

Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech. What planet do you live on that you think everyone else should have to both listen to what you say, and then not "punish" you for it? If you tell your wife she looks fat, she's probably not having sex with you that evening. If you call someone a racial slur, they're probably both going to tell everyone they know about what you said, and refuse to interact with you unless forced to. What you're talking about isn't freedom of speech, it's freedom FROM responsibility. I don't think you're going to find very many people that want to sign up for: HNThrowaway262 can do whatever he wants and you just have to take it. That's a dictatorship or a monarchy, you might want to live in that society but I don't. Your words and actions have consequences and SHOULD.

zimablue 6y ago
"Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech" That's not true, it doesn't even really make sense. Freedom of anything is freedom from consequences for it. If I say I believe in freedom to have an abortion, noone would reasonably be said to agree if they said they also believe in freedom to have an abortion, and then immediate execution by the state afterwards. Freedom of speech in the constitution is freedom from reprisal by the government Freedom of speech as used idiomatically in speech generally means a certain level of freedom of reprisals from employers and society. Directed racial slurs is a straw man, almost noone believes in absolutist freedom of speech when it comes to directed harrassment, they normally believe in freedom to discuss topics in the abstract. It's not a monarchy if someone has the freedom to speak, that doesn't make them a king just a citizen. I've noticed a trend with the woke side of the debate to get into like high-school level semantics - redefining words or misinterpreting statements in a nakedly disingenuous way - does anyone understand why this seems to be a trend?
- tw04 6y ago
  >almost noone believes in absolutist freedom of speech when it comes to directed harrassment Not a true statement at all. 30 seconds over at r/the_donald (yes, I'm aware it's gone) makes it pretty clear there's a large swath of trolls that believe directed harassment and racism is perfectly acceptable. >It's not a monarchy if someone has the freedom to speak, that doesn't make them a king just a citizen. Forcing society to accept your speech is absolutely a monarchy, sorry. Your right to speech stops at my front door, up to and including terminating your employment at my company. Why is it the racists always devolve to high-school level semantics and claim freedom of speech means they're free from any consequences for their speech?
- krapp 6y ago
  >Freedom of speech as used idiomatically in speech generally means a certain level of freedom of reprisals from employers and society. "a certain level" implies the existence of an acceptable level of consequence, unless by that you mean "absolute." If so, why not simply state that? >Directed racial slurs is a straw man, almost noone believes in absolutist freedom of speech when it comes to directed harrassment, they normally believe in freedom to discuss topics in the abstract. You're just moving the goalposts around the definition of "speech" so that it conveniently doesn't include the contradictions to your premise. Racial slurs and directed harassment are obviously speech. If you believe there should be consequences for that, then you believe freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
  - zimablue 6y ago
    It's not moving the goal posts, you seem to be creating a false dichotomy between: "support free speech" -> must support lack of reprisals for all free speech, including directed racial slurs "do not support free speech" -> must accept the current level and form of reprisals. Where most people who say they support free speech are, is this statement: "support free speech without reprisals, excluding directed harrassment, with some level of acceptable reprisals in employment and socially, depending on the context, but at a much lower level than is currently the case, with less arbitrary application of mob justice and employer discrimination" It's not catchy but nor is it inherently contradictory. It's what I imagine JK Rowling, Chomsky et al would say if you spoke to them about their letter. I really think it would be useful if the anti-free-speech side of the debate stopped with this semantics and straw men about freedom from reprisals, monarchies, directed racism. I think that a person should be free to discuss eg. spaces for trans vs non-trans women and where to draw the line on sports etc, to what level the BLM is a useful movement, the relative weight of cultural vs economic vs discrimination in explaining different outcomes across ethicities and genders, positive discrimination, without being fired, cancelled or becoming unemployable. That's what most free speech people think, and all these semantic points, false definitions and straw men are kind of a waste of time
    - krapp 6y ago
      You seem to believe the phrase "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" implicitly justifies all possible consequences. It doesn't, it merely implies that speech doesn't exist in a vacuum, and that the consequences of speech often, themselves, are as much a manifestation of free expression as the original speech. Your own counterclaim, however, that "freedom from anything means freedom from the consequences of that thing" does not even allow for the reasonable, non-arbitrary consequences you're supporting, here. You, I and tw04 are actually in violent agreement, but it seems your politics doesn't allow you to concede the possibility that the "other side" can hold a reasonable opinion.
- SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
  The implication that "abstract" discussion is acceptable seems to condone dog whistling, especially given that protesting much of that speech could be considered "redefining words or misinterpreting statements in a nakedly disingenuous way", as that coded redefinition by the speaker is literally what dog whistles require, but seems disingenuous outside of that context.
  - zimablue 6y ago
    That's true and the nature of language is such that there are constantly evolving dog whistles and methods of expression, but dog whistles aren't directed harrassment so I would basically allow them. Feel free not to vote for a dog whistling politician but I don't think one should not employ/fire/cancel someone for dog whistling that they believe some unfashionable or objectionable view.
    - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
      > Feel free not to vote for a dog whistling politician but I don't think one should not employ/fire/cancel someone for dog whistling that they believe some unfashionable or objectionable view. I mean, that's literally what not voting for someone is - choosing to not hire them. But that's semantics. I'm not sure how you draw the lines on all this - if someone is spending all day tell their Jewish co-worker they need to stop the "international bankers", is that OK? Is speaking hatefully in the abstract about a group of people acceptable?
      - gowld 6y ago
        "Jew bankers" is a nasty slur. But is it a slur because It's unfair to Jews to call bankers Jews, or to call Jews bankers, or unfair to bankers to call bankers Jews, or to call Jews bankers? If you attack a person or a race by accusing them of misbehaviors, that doesn't mean it's wrong to oppese misbehaviors!
        SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
pseudonym2020 6y ago
I think the issue arises due to the nature of the internet being such an amplification tool. In-person social networks are on the order of 100s or 1000s. What I'm really afraid of is reaching an audience of hundreds of millions, and having them potentially inadvertently take my words out of context. Doxing is a hard problem to solve, but I'd really prefer a SWAT team not show up at my door. Statistically, you're much more likely to reach those few bad apples with an internet-sized megaphone. I think disagreements are fantastic to work through and how we better ourselves, but some people react pretty horribly to them.
Aqua 6y ago
And who shall be the judge of what is right and what is wrong? An internet mob? If an unknown woman issues a public twitter statement that she's been abused, is it OK to get the alleged offender cancelled before a court trial? What if they are innocent? How do you un-cancel somebody? You don't. That's why the cancel culture is ridiculous and needs to end.
- karpierz 6y ago
  Would you like to judge how limited my speech should be? For example, if someone feels me up, should I be allowed to post on Facebook detailing the encounter? Am I allowed to name them? Can I tag their employers? If I read about someone claiming that they've been felt up, can I forward it to my friends? Can I notify my employer if they're working at the same company as me? Essentially, can you determine a line where my freedom to speak ends?
  - zimablue 6y ago
    Yeah it ends when you make a statement about someone that accuses them of a crime or otherwise libels them, in the UK at least. If someone has committed a crime, we have courts. We've been doing this for centuries.
    - karpierz 6y ago
      > Yeah it ends when you make a statement about someone that accuses them of a crime Why should I avoid talking about something because it pertains to a criminal proceeding? If I get sexually assaulted, should I avoid reaching out to anyone for support? If a person cheated me out of money during a business transaction, should I avoid calling them out on it? If someone punches me, and the police decide not to press charges, do I avoid warning anyone?
      - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
        Purpose of cancel culture is lynching, and you're not allowed to lynch.
GoblinSlayer 6y ago
The consequence of speech should be speech.
- detaro 6y ago
  So no advocating for policies, laws or actions anymore?
  - gruez 6y ago
    There's a difference between advocating for political change, and ruining someone's life.
    - detaro 6y ago
      There are connections between the two though, annoyingly often. Advocating for a policy change that will ruin some people's lives. Advocating for a status quo that will ruin some people's lives. Advocating for some group of people to be fired. It doesn't make sense to see speech just as a consequence-less thing, in both directions.
      - gruez 6y ago
        You have to draw the line somewhere, right? Otherwise you get into slippery slope territory where eg. you can argue anyone who's not protesting for BLM are implicitly supporting the cops, and therefore are ruining black people's lives.
        detaro 6y ago
        Sure. Not everything warrants a reaction, impact of speech highly depends on the speaker and context and reactions can be not proportionate. But I don't think a blanket "speech shouldn't have consequences" really works, because it will often have them, and often is intended to have them.
  - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
lliamander 6y ago
> What planet do you live on that you think everyone else should have to both listen to what you say, and then not "punish" you for it? No one is forcing you to listen to anything. I'm sure you've never been forced to read r/TheDonald, or watch Alex Jones talk. If any friends on social media links you to a paper on psychological differences between the sexes being rooted in biology, you are free to ignore the link or block them all-together. If a coworker or employee starts talking about immigration restriction in a way that sounds vaguely xenophobic, you're free to ask them to keep that kind of political talk out of the workplace. This is about the freedom that the rest of us have to choose to listen to others' speech, and to be free to engage with it and come to our own conclusion about it. > If you tell your wife she looks fat, she's probably not having sex with you that evening. If you call someone a racial slur, they're probably both going to tell everyone they know about what you said, and refuse to interact with you unless forced to. Those are not relevant examples.
mumbisChungo 6y ago
>Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech. It is though, it's just that we as a society define which consequences you are free from as the speaker (ex. some legal consequences). The internet, and social media in particular, has profoundly changed how we think about the topic. In my opinion we'd be better off as a whole if we reevaluated our perspectives when presented with new information rather than avoiding discourse entirely in favour of dogma. >and then not "punish" you for it? If you tell your wife she looks fat, she's probably not having sex with you that evening This isn't a punitive action, it's a personal choice of your wife. AFAIK you are not entitled to sex with your wife whenever you so choose. A scenario in which a contract is terminated based on something said on social media (when there's no clause in the contract covering that particular thing) is fundamentally different, for example.
commandlinefan 6y ago
> Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech. Yes, it does, actually. That is, in fact, the definition of freedom of speech.
HamSession 6y ago
Ah bottom up control Mao would be pleased.
bokbok8379 6y ago
How about freedom of thought? Am I still allowed to have that?

by tw04 6y ago

zimablue 6y ago

"Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech" That's not true, it doesn't even really make sense. Freedom of anything is freedom from consequences for it. If I say I believe in freedom to have an abortion, noone would reasonably be said to agree if they said they also believe in freedom to have an abortion, and then immediate execution by the state afterwards. Freedom of speech in the constitution is freedom from reprisal by the government Freedom of speech as used idiomatically in speech generally means a certain level of freedom of reprisals from employers and society. Directed racial slurs is a straw man, almost noone believes in absolutist freedom of speech when it comes to directed harrassment, they normally believe in freedom to discuss topics in the abstract. It's not a monarchy if someone has the freedom to speak, that doesn't make them a king just a citizen. I've noticed a trend with the woke side of the debate to get into like high-school level semantics - redefining words or misinterpreting statements in a nakedly disingenuous way - does anyone understand why this seems to be a trend?

tw04 6y ago
>almost noone believes in absolutist freedom of speech when it comes to directed harrassment Not a true statement at all. 30 seconds over at r/the_donald (yes, I'm aware it's gone) makes it pretty clear there's a large swath of trolls that believe directed harassment and racism is perfectly acceptable. >It's not a monarchy if someone has the freedom to speak, that doesn't make them a king just a citizen. Forcing society to accept your speech is absolutely a monarchy, sorry. Your right to speech stops at my front door, up to and including terminating your employment at my company. Why is it the racists always devolve to high-school level semantics and claim freedom of speech means they're free from any consequences for their speech?
krapp 6y ago
>Freedom of speech as used idiomatically in speech generally means a certain level of freedom of reprisals from employers and society. "a certain level" implies the existence of an acceptable level of consequence, unless by that you mean "absolute." If so, why not simply state that? >Directed racial slurs is a straw man, almost noone believes in absolutist freedom of speech when it comes to directed harrassment, they normally believe in freedom to discuss topics in the abstract. You're just moving the goalposts around the definition of "speech" so that it conveniently doesn't include the contradictions to your premise. Racial slurs and directed harassment are obviously speech. If you believe there should be consequences for that, then you believe freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
- zimablue 6y ago
  It's not moving the goal posts, you seem to be creating a false dichotomy between: "support free speech" -> must support lack of reprisals for all free speech, including directed racial slurs "do not support free speech" -> must accept the current level and form of reprisals. Where most people who say they support free speech are, is this statement: "support free speech without reprisals, excluding directed harrassment, with some level of acceptable reprisals in employment and socially, depending on the context, but at a much lower level than is currently the case, with less arbitrary application of mob justice and employer discrimination" It's not catchy but nor is it inherently contradictory. It's what I imagine JK Rowling, Chomsky et al would say if you spoke to them about their letter. I really think it would be useful if the anti-free-speech side of the debate stopped with this semantics and straw men about freedom from reprisals, monarchies, directed racism. I think that a person should be free to discuss eg. spaces for trans vs non-trans women and where to draw the line on sports etc, to what level the BLM is a useful movement, the relative weight of cultural vs economic vs discrimination in explaining different outcomes across ethicities and genders, positive discrimination, without being fired, cancelled or becoming unemployable. That's what most free speech people think, and all these semantic points, false definitions and straw men are kind of a waste of time
  - krapp 6y ago
    You seem to believe the phrase "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" implicitly justifies all possible consequences. It doesn't, it merely implies that speech doesn't exist in a vacuum, and that the consequences of speech often, themselves, are as much a manifestation of free expression as the original speech. Your own counterclaim, however, that "freedom from anything means freedom from the consequences of that thing" does not even allow for the reasonable, non-arbitrary consequences you're supporting, here. You, I and tw04 are actually in violent agreement, but it seems your politics doesn't allow you to concede the possibility that the "other side" can hold a reasonable opinion.
SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
The implication that "abstract" discussion is acceptable seems to condone dog whistling, especially given that protesting much of that speech could be considered "redefining words or misinterpreting statements in a nakedly disingenuous way", as that coded redefinition by the speaker is literally what dog whistles require, but seems disingenuous outside of that context.
- zimablue 6y ago
  That's true and the nature of language is such that there are constantly evolving dog whistles and methods of expression, but dog whistles aren't directed harrassment so I would basically allow them. Feel free not to vote for a dog whistling politician but I don't think one should not employ/fire/cancel someone for dog whistling that they believe some unfashionable or objectionable view.
  - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
    > Feel free not to vote for a dog whistling politician but I don't think one should not employ/fire/cancel someone for dog whistling that they believe some unfashionable or objectionable view. I mean, that's literally what not voting for someone is - choosing to not hire them. But that's semantics. I'm not sure how you draw the lines on all this - if someone is spending all day tell their Jewish co-worker they need to stop the "international bankers", is that OK? Is speaking hatefully in the abstract about a group of people acceptable?
    - gowld 6y ago
      "Jew bankers" is a nasty slur. But is it a slur because It's unfair to Jews to call bankers Jews, or to call Jews bankers, or unfair to bankers to call bankers Jews, or to call Jews bankers? If you attack a person or a race by accusing them of misbehaviors, that doesn't mean it's wrong to oppese misbehaviors!
      - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago

pseudonym2020 6y ago

I think the issue arises due to the nature of the internet being such an amplification tool. In-person social networks are on the order of 100s or 1000s. What I'm really afraid of is reaching an audience of hundreds of millions, and having them potentially inadvertently take my words out of context. Doxing is a hard problem to solve, but I'd really prefer a SWAT team not show up at my door. Statistically, you're much more likely to reach those few bad apples with an internet-sized megaphone. I think disagreements are fantastic to work through and how we better ourselves, but some people react pretty horribly to them.

Aqua 6y ago

And who shall be the judge of what is right and what is wrong? An internet mob? If an unknown woman issues a public twitter statement that she's been abused, is it OK to get the alleged offender cancelled before a court trial? What if they are innocent? How do you un-cancel somebody? You don't. That's why the cancel culture is ridiculous and needs to end.

karpierz 6y ago
Would you like to judge how limited my speech should be? For example, if someone feels me up, should I be allowed to post on Facebook detailing the encounter? Am I allowed to name them? Can I tag their employers? If I read about someone claiming that they've been felt up, can I forward it to my friends? Can I notify my employer if they're working at the same company as me? Essentially, can you determine a line where my freedom to speak ends?
- zimablue 6y ago
  Yeah it ends when you make a statement about someone that accuses them of a crime or otherwise libels them, in the UK at least. If someone has committed a crime, we have courts. We've been doing this for centuries.
  - karpierz 6y ago
    > Yeah it ends when you make a statement about someone that accuses them of a crime Why should I avoid talking about something because it pertains to a criminal proceeding? If I get sexually assaulted, should I avoid reaching out to anyone for support? If a person cheated me out of money during a business transaction, should I avoid calling them out on it? If someone punches me, and the police decide not to press charges, do I avoid warning anyone?
    - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
      Purpose of cancel culture is lynching, and you're not allowed to lynch.

GoblinSlayer 6y ago

The consequence of speech should be speech.

detaro 6y ago
So no advocating for policies, laws or actions anymore?
- gruez 6y ago
  There's a difference between advocating for political change, and ruining someone's life.
  - detaro 6y ago
    There are connections between the two though, annoyingly often. Advocating for a policy change that will ruin some people's lives. Advocating for a status quo that will ruin some people's lives. Advocating for some group of people to be fired. It doesn't make sense to see speech just as a consequence-less thing, in both directions.
    - gruez 6y ago
      You have to draw the line somewhere, right? Otherwise you get into slippery slope territory where eg. you can argue anyone who's not protesting for BLM are implicitly supporting the cops, and therefore are ruining black people's lives.
      - detaro 6y ago
        Sure. Not everything warrants a reaction, impact of speech highly depends on the speaker and context and reactions can be not proportionate. But I don't think a blanket "speech shouldn't have consequences" really works, because it will often have them, and often is intended to have them.
- GoblinSlayer 6y ago

lliamander 6y ago

> What planet do you live on that you think everyone else should have to both listen to what you say, and then not "punish" you for it? No one is forcing you to listen to anything. I'm sure you've never been forced to read r/TheDonald, or watch Alex Jones talk. If any friends on social media links you to a paper on psychological differences between the sexes being rooted in biology, you are free to ignore the link or block them all-together. If a coworker or employee starts talking about immigration restriction in a way that sounds vaguely xenophobic, you're free to ask them to keep that kind of political talk out of the workplace. This is about the freedom that the rest of us have to choose to listen to others' speech, and to be free to engage with it and come to our own conclusion about it. > If you tell your wife she looks fat, she's probably not having sex with you that evening. If you call someone a racial slur, they're probably both going to tell everyone they know about what you said, and refuse to interact with you unless forced to. Those are not relevant examples.

mumbisChungo 6y ago

>Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech. It is though, it's just that we as a society define which consequences you are free from as the speaker (ex. some legal consequences). The internet, and social media in particular, has profoundly changed how we think about the topic. In my opinion we'd be better off as a whole if we reevaluated our perspectives when presented with new information rather than avoiding discourse entirely in favour of dogma. >and then not "punish" you for it? If you tell your wife she looks fat, she's probably not having sex with you that evening This isn't a punitive action, it's a personal choice of your wife. AFAIK you are not entitled to sex with your wife whenever you so choose. A scenario in which a contract is terminated based on something said on social media (when there's no clause in the contract covering that particular thing) is fundamentally different, for example.

commandlinefan 6y ago

> Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech. Yes, it does, actually. That is, in fact, the definition of freedom of speech.

HamSession 6y ago

Ah bottom up control Mao would be pleased.

bokbok8379 6y ago

How about freedom of thought? Am I still allowed to have that?