3 ms·

I think we may actually be on the same side, then - my implication was that America is "freedom from persecution," _not_ freedom from criticism and/or private c

I think we may actually be on the same side, then - my implication was that America is "freedom from persecution," _not_ freedom from criticism and/or private consequence. When I say _private_ consequence, I primarily mean if you say something that the owner of a restaraunt you dine in does not like, you can get kicked out from that private enterprise, but the government cannot stifle your ability to say the words that got you kicked out nor can you go to jail for face legal action. TL;DR I believe we may be thinking of different ideas of "consequence" :)

loveistheanswer 6y ago
Defenders of slavery used that same "private enterprise" line to assert their rights over people; as did restaurant owners 100 years after slavery was abolished to justify kicking out people with offensive skin color. It was not an existing law, but the ideal "that all men are created equal" which abolishonists and civil rights leaders pointed to in their quest for equality. Likewise it is the ideal of freedom of expression which we are pointing to now that should protect humans from being banned from the digital town square for expressing offensive ideas.