5 ms·
"You see, freedom of speech and expression must be absolute." That's pretty extreme. First, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence of speech. And s
by tovej 6y ago
"You see, freedom of speech and expression must be absolute."
That's pretty extreme. First, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence of speech.
And second, freedom of speech only applies to public forums. Why would a private enterprise need to put up with someone spreading vitriol and fake news?
Let's say I own a mall, and you rent a store in that mall.
You suddenly decide that you are going to start selling Nazi merch and incite people to riot in my mall.
Why am I a "cancel culture SJW" if I kick you out of my mall?
- jimbob45 6y agoWhat if you exclusively kick all blacks out of your mall? Under your rules, that should be indiscriminately allowed.
- tovej 6y agoMy rules (society's rules) are entirely orthogonal to the issue of discrimination against groups of people. If individuals do not follow the rules, they should be punished, that's fine. If you apply the rules differently depending on what group a person belongs to, that's not ok. ... but that has nothing to do with my comment (I can't believe I have to explain this).
- Arainach 6y agoDiscrimination based on what someone is is wrong and illegal. That's why we have protected classes for race, gender, sexuality, age, and so on. Discrimination based on people's words and actions is how society functions. It's perfectly legal. This isn't even about politics. If you think people refusing to do business with white supremacists, insurrectionists, and racists is discriminating against a political party, that says a lot about that political party. No one's getting deplatformed for talking about deregulation or free trade.
- barbacoa 6y agoPeople do have free speech rights at private owned malls. Not sure if that would apply to stores but courts have ruled it does apply to people at malls (and other public areas that are privately owned). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v....
- tovej 6y agoSure, but in the analogy, the person "speaking freely" wasn't a member of the public but someone renting a store.
- mreome 6y agoI would point out that according to that link this is not a right under the US constitution, but a right under the California Constitution which contains a broader affirmative right of free speech. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that there is no implied right of free speech within a private shopping centers under the under US Constitution. Also, at least 13 other US states with similarly worded rights to free speech in their constitutions have ruled that this does not include a right of free speech in private shopping centers, as has the European Court of Human Rights.
- igetspam 6y agoUpvoted and replying because it is something everyone should have to read: > freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence of speech. It's a fundamental failing of comprehension to not know that. Speech is free and so are repercussions. Say what you want but know that a response is possible and also just as free.
- waterhouse 6y agoSurely, if one of the consequences of speech is being thrown in jail, that would violate freedom of speech. Therefore, freedom of speech means freedom from at least some consequences of speech. Then the question is, which consequences?