3 ms·

I think the word you are looking for is "retaliation" and not "consequences". E.g. when you tell a waiter you want to order chicken and get chicken or you tweet

I think the word you are looking for is "retaliation" and not "consequences". E.g. when you tell a waiter you want to order chicken and get chicken or you tweet that you hate Python and stop being solicited for Python jobs or you defraud somebody and get sued etc. you suffer consequences i.e. the logical effects of your actions[1], speech in this case. However, when you tweet that you support a presidential candidate and lose your job or when you expose some shady dealings as a journalist and your house is attacked by a mob or you state your opinion about anything and get death threats - these are not consequences of your speech. These are examples of revenge or retaliation. We do mean that freedom to speak is freedom from retaliation. We actually have laws against retaliation in specific cases and, yes, even against retaliation by private parties. 1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consequence https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consequence

52-6F-62 6y ago
I don't think it's that simple. You're not free from all retaliation, especially if those laws are only in specific cases. For example, there are laws for retaliation, even. You can say whatever you want, but if that speech happens to be untrue and directed at some party you could be subject to a defamation suit. That is not the government punishing you for your speech, but it is a legal retaliation for what was said.
- pandaman 6y ago
  Obviously we are not free from all retaliation just as we are not free from all murder. I am addressing the position "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences!" where "consequences" is actually "retaliation". It totally does. It's not about 1A or laws, it's about moral judgment. We (majority of Americans) don't want retaliation for any speech. If you need laws to stop this - we will bring them onto you. We actually have enough laws to fight cancelers right now but the judicial system appears too corrupt (though just few days ago, a lawsuit against WaPo trying to cancel a kid had been successfully settled). And in your example it's not a retaliation - you can only successfully sue if you have actual damages so if the speech caused damages then the lawsuit is a consequence (just like in the similar example in my previous post about fraud).
  - 52-6F-62 6y ago
    I don't have time today to engage in this discussion again but you seem to be taking a lot of over-stepping inconvenient aspects to your own argument. You didn't really explain any further, you just kind of said "no". I'm curious to hear the real distinction because I'm not seeing it. I don't think your rulings over what is "retaliation" versus "legal retaliation" versus "consequence" are correct.
ngcc_hk 6y ago
How to cut the liner? Not all can be predicted. Some may and some may not. Consequence is sometimes chaotic.
- pandaman 6y ago
  Sure, not all can be predicted but we don't predict when we judge between retaliation and consequences. It has already happened so no prediction is necessary.

52-6F-62 6y ago

I don't think it's that simple. You're not free from all retaliation, especially if those laws are only in specific cases. For example, there are laws for retaliation, even. You can say whatever you want, but if that speech happens to be untrue and directed at some party you could be subject to a defamation suit. That is not the government punishing you for your speech, but it is a legal retaliation for what was said.

pandaman 6y ago
Obviously we are not free from all retaliation just as we are not free from all murder. I am addressing the position "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences!" where "consequences" is actually "retaliation". It totally does. It's not about 1A or laws, it's about moral judgment. We (majority of Americans) don't want retaliation for any speech. If you need laws to stop this - we will bring them onto you. We actually have enough laws to fight cancelers right now but the judicial system appears too corrupt (though just few days ago, a lawsuit against WaPo trying to cancel a kid had been successfully settled). And in your example it's not a retaliation - you can only successfully sue if you have actual damages so if the speech caused damages then the lawsuit is a consequence (just like in the similar example in my previous post about fraud).
- 52-6F-62 6y ago
  I don't have time today to engage in this discussion again but you seem to be taking a lot of over-stepping inconvenient aspects to your own argument. You didn't really explain any further, you just kind of said "no". I'm curious to hear the real distinction because I'm not seeing it. I don't think your rulings over what is "retaliation" versus "legal retaliation" versus "consequence" are correct.

ngcc_hk 6y ago

How to cut the liner? Not all can be predicted. Some may and some may not. Consequence is sometimes chaotic.

pandaman 6y ago
Sure, not all can be predicted but we don't predict when we judge between retaliation and consequences. It has already happened so no prediction is necessary.