3 ms·
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 ret
by 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 agoObviously 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 agoI 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.