3 ms·

> I'm strongly reminded of the quote "Freedom of speech doesn't protect speech you like; it protects speech you don't like... Modern addendum is "You can have

by geodel 6y ago

> I'm strongly reminded of the quote "Freedom of speech doesn't protect speech you like; it protects speech you don't like... Modern addendum is "You can have Freedom Of Speech but no guarantee for Freedom After speech." Edit: Just to clarify, It is not my opinion. It is Social media warriors warning people "Free speech is not free of consequences"

DevKoala 6y ago
I struggled to read your comment, but it shouldn’t be ignored. What you are saying is correct.
mercurysmessage 6y ago
"Free speech is not free of consequences" This is absolutely true though? I fail to see your point. You are free to say what you want, and other people are free to criticize you for it. If you don't support the right to criticize, you don't support free speech.
- RonanTheGrey 6y ago
  Depends on the consequences. Usually this is invoked to mean "it's fine for me burn down your business or destroy your life because I don't like you because consequences <grin>" In general, the statement CANNOT be true, because the chilling effect explicitly suppresses free speech -- being a result of consequences. Ergo, consequence (of a particular type) is in fact suppression of free speech.
  - lucisferre 6y ago
    > Usually this is invoked to mean "it's fine for me burn down your business or destroy your life because I don't like you because consequences <grin>" What a ridiculous hyperbole of what it "usually" means.
- geodel 6y ago
  It is more of "free to criticize' vs 'free to destroy livelihood' thing. Some would say both are same or second is just an implementation detail of first.
  - alkonaut 6y ago
    Free speech is the right to not be arrested for speaking. It's not the right to not be punched in the face for saying stupid things (there is a separate law for face punching).
    - seneca 6y ago
      > Free speech is the right to not be arrested for speaking. It's not the right to not be punched in the face for saying stupid things (there is a separate law for face punching). No, the 1st Amendment is the right to not be arrested for speaking (in the United States). Free Speech is a philosophy that would absolutely cover not committing physical violence against someone for what they say. Violence in response to speech is probably a good starting point for the definition of unfree speech.
      - gpm 6y ago
        This is spot on. In addition the first amendment is theoretically protection against punching you in the face not being prohibited because of something you said. The government could make face punching legal in general, but not legal only if the victim first makes an idiot out of themselves.
      - alkonaut 6y ago
        Yes, the reason we have laws against face punching people who say dumb things is partly to protect free speech in the philosophical sense (there are obviously other reasons too, such as that it hurts). This still doesn’t mean that speech without consequences is possible. The grandparent comment mentioned the loss of a livelihood as an example (unsure exactly what it refers to but could be e.g boycotts).

by geodel 6y ago

DevKoala 6y ago

I struggled to read your comment, but it shouldn’t be ignored. What you are saying is correct.

mercurysmessage 6y ago

"Free speech is not free of consequences" This is absolutely true though? I fail to see your point. You are free to say what you want, and other people are free to criticize you for it. If you don't support the right to criticize, you don't support free speech.

RonanTheGrey 6y ago
Depends on the consequences. Usually this is invoked to mean "it's fine for me burn down your business or destroy your life because I don't like you because consequences <grin>" In general, the statement CANNOT be true, because the chilling effect explicitly suppresses free speech -- being a result of consequences. Ergo, consequence (of a particular type) is in fact suppression of free speech.
- lucisferre 6y ago
  > Usually this is invoked to mean "it's fine for me burn down your business or destroy your life because I don't like you because consequences <grin>" What a ridiculous hyperbole of what it "usually" means.
geodel 6y ago
It is more of "free to criticize' vs 'free to destroy livelihood' thing. Some would say both are same or second is just an implementation detail of first.
- alkonaut 6y ago
  Free speech is the right to not be arrested for speaking. It's not the right to not be punched in the face for saying stupid things (there is a separate law for face punching).
  - seneca 6y ago
    > Free speech is the right to not be arrested for speaking. It's not the right to not be punched in the face for saying stupid things (there is a separate law for face punching). No, the 1st Amendment is the right to not be arrested for speaking (in the United States). Free Speech is a philosophy that would absolutely cover not committing physical violence against someone for what they say. Violence in response to speech is probably a good starting point for the definition of unfree speech.
    - gpm 6y ago
      This is spot on. In addition the first amendment is theoretically protection against punching you in the face not being prohibited because of something you said. The government could make face punching legal in general, but not legal only if the victim first makes an idiot out of themselves.
    - alkonaut 6y ago
      Yes, the reason we have laws against face punching people who say dumb things is partly to protect free speech in the philosophical sense (there are obviously other reasons too, such as that it hurts). This still doesn’t mean that speech without consequences is possible. The grandparent comment mentioned the loss of a livelihood as an example (unsure exactly what it refers to but could be e.g boycotts).