2 ms·
> Punching people in the face is illegal regardless of the reason - I don't really see how that's relevant? The 'freedom of speech is not freedom from conseque
by ttt0 5y ago
> Punching people in the face is illegal regardless of the reason - I don't really see how that's relevant?
The 'freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences' was popularized (repopularized?) and became a somewhat mainstream talking point in America around 2016-17 to justify political violence with the "punch a nazi" thing and stuff. It's the "paradox of tolerance".
- africanboy 5y agoI think it was popularized in the USA by the first amendment > FREEDOM of speech is a constitutional guarantee. But that doesn't mean it is absolute or not subject to some limitations one important thing is that the burden of the proof is on the accusers. it was "repopularized" because there were literally nazis killing people in the streets, you should be aware that being a nazi it's a crime almost everywhere in the western World (except US) and that nazi usually hide themselves behind the "you should prove that hate speech against the jews is a crime" So the broader definition of freedom of speech AND the consequences is a consequence of nazis taking over the public discourse, not the contrary. Yes, it's the paradox of tolerance.
- msg3 5y agoFair enough. I'm certainly not advocating that it's ok to punch someone over something they said. The context of this thread (expressing political opinions at work) makes me think the other types of consequence are more relevant for this discussion though.