4 ms·

This logic reduces to "I should be able to shout the N-word at Applebees and not be kicked out." I'm a free speech advocate, but your concept of rights is pret

• FeepingCreature 6y ago
  > This logic reduces to "I should be able to shout the N-word at Applebees and not be kicked out." Yes it would. And that's why total unrestricted free speech is too much. But it's still free speech. Like, this is not an argument, just "this logic reduces to <bad conclusion>, so it's wrong." > Being free from the consequences of your actions is not a right Disagree, rights only exist to the extent they are free of reprisals - that's what it means for something to be a right. Obviously there's a balance here, I'm not saying free speech implies that your speech can only have positive causal effects, but there's a class of responses that has historically included government sanctions (and that I'd argue should also include corporate sanctions) that do need to be prevented for speech to be considered free at all. Otherwise, the only way for a regime to not have free speech would be to physically sew your mouth shut. > Everything else after that (ie, forcing Applebees to let you shout slurs) is oppression in one form or another. Sure, it's a tradeoff. I probably just don't care very much about oppressing corporations.