2 ms·
Okay, I'll bite. >Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences! How is that false? You can say what you want, outside of threats and the like, bu
by Loughla 6y ago
Okay, I'll bite.
>Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences!
How is that false? You can say what you want, outside of threats and the like, but you also get to live with the outcome of saying whatever it is.
I don't see how that's puritanical. It's a statement of fact. I can tell my boss to go f** himself. I can also get fired for doing that.
- prepend 6y agoI had to read the Scarlet Letter in high school. Hester Prynn had to live with the outcome of saying whatever it was. It was literally puritanical to make her wear a red “A.” as the outcome of her speech (v-a-v extramarital sex). I think the point isn’t that speech should have no impact, but that the response to speech should be proportional and what proportional means. The Puritans in Hawthorne’s novel thought that making someone a pariah was a proportional response. They were wrong, I think. But the lesson, I think, is not that we should be more precise in meting out moral judgement, but that we should judge less.
- flippinburgers 6y agoIt is a trite stick hung above arguments that people want to silence before they even happen which makes it intellectually uninteresting and shallow. And more than anything it is used to further attempt to shame people. There is no compassion in the phrase.
- unishark 6y agoI'm guessing their complaint is not about whether it is technically true, but the hypocrisy of the people saying this when they are the ones who create the consequences. Like if your boss tells you you are free to say anything you want then fires you if they don't like it.