4 ms·

> As is often stated, the freedom of speech is not the freedom of consequences. The problem with such a trite comment is that is is just as true in North Korea

> As is often stated, the freedom of speech is not the freedom of consequences. The problem with such a trite comment is that is is just as true in North Korea. You are complete Free™ to say what you like about Supreme Leader Grand Marshal Kim Jong-un, but you know - there might be consequences.

HelloMcFly 5y ago
There's quite a bit of difference between government-imposed consequences and social consequences. Otherwise in a sense we're all "free" to murder and steal, everywhere, in every country.
- NikolaeVarius 5y ago
  Struggle Sessions were a social consequence of being part of the "bad guys", a way to use society to stamp out "bad thoughts"
- mc32 5y ago
  Scarlet letters, ostracism, outcasting, etc., those are the civilian analogues and are just as palatable as the governmental version.
codyswann 5y ago
Not true. Freedom of speech in the US prevents the US government for levying consequences against you for what you said. This is not the case in North Koreas
- throwaway210222 5y ago
  That's only because they couldn't care less what you or I say most almost all of the time. Instead, democratic governments (especially violence-shy Western ones) use the Official Secrets Act [or local equivalent] to prevent the people that are privy to information the governments do care about from ever talking about it.
falcolas 5y ago
So, are you saying that people shouldn't be held to the consequences of their actions, because the North Korean government does the same? Pretty sure that's a logical fallacy: Reductio ad absurdum to be specific. And that's on top of the difference between the State and its power lawfully backed by lethal force and society which lacks the same.
- colpabar 5y ago
  >So, are you saying that people shouldn't be held to the consequences of their actions, because the North Korean government does the same? No. No one is saying that. No one has ever said that, because it doesn't make any sense. Of course all actions have consequences. Of course saying something hurtful will cause others to react negatively. No one is contesting this. What people are contesting is that a very small but highly vocal group of people who seemingly get offended by everything can demand that the rest of us force consequences on people that hurt their feelings. Right now, there's a small group of netflix employees planning some kind of protest. That is their right to do, that is a consequence for netflix producing this comedy special. The problem with the "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" line is that it always seems to be a very small group demanding that some larger group bow to their demands and force consequences on someone that wouldn't receive them otherwise. In this case, this very small group is demanding that dave chappelle or netflix suffer consequences for producing his special. But according to rotten tomatoes, and most of the comments I read on the internet, is that the overwhelming majority of people thought it was funny. "Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" means that if I call your mother a prostitute, I might get punched in the face. It does not mean that if a digital content producer airs a comedy special you don't like, that anyone who doesn't like it can demand that it be taken down and then say "well those are just the consequences!" The consequence of netflix airing this special is that some people will get offended and may cancel their subscriptions and some of their employees might protest and/or quit. That's it. Caving to the demands of those offended is not "suffering the consequences."
  - taylodl 5y ago
    Netflix has agency, no? If Netflix were to take down the Dave Chappelle episode as a result of "caving to the demands of those offended" that is their right, no? I still retain my agency to cancel my Netflix subscription - I could cancel because I was offended by the episode, I could cancel because I was upset that Netflix pulled the episode. I'm really not seeing how anybody's freedoms are being diminished in this case, regardless of the outcome.
taylodl 5y ago
It's probably for the best you used a throwaway account to say something so profoundly ignorant. The consequences of which the OP spoke are social consequences, they're not legal consequences. In the United States you can say whatever you want without fear of legal reprisal, however the social consequences can be dire. That is to say, I retain the freedom to think you're an asshole and not associate with you in response to something you said. That's my right.

HelloMcFly 5y ago

There's quite a bit of difference between government-imposed consequences and social consequences. Otherwise in a sense we're all "free" to murder and steal, everywhere, in every country.

NikolaeVarius 5y ago
Struggle Sessions were a social consequence of being part of the "bad guys", a way to use society to stamp out "bad thoughts"
mc32 5y ago
Scarlet letters, ostracism, outcasting, etc., those are the civilian analogues and are just as palatable as the governmental version.

codyswann 5y ago

Not true. Freedom of speech in the US prevents the US government for levying consequences against you for what you said. This is not the case in North Koreas

throwaway210222 5y ago
That's only because they couldn't care less what you or I say most almost all of the time. Instead, democratic governments (especially violence-shy Western ones) use the Official Secrets Act [or local equivalent] to prevent the people that are privy to information the governments do care about from ever talking about it.

falcolas 5y ago

So, are you saying that people shouldn't be held to the consequences of their actions, because the North Korean government does the same? Pretty sure that's a logical fallacy: Reductio ad absurdum to be specific. And that's on top of the difference between the State and its power lawfully backed by lethal force and society which lacks the same.

colpabar 5y ago
>So, are you saying that people shouldn't be held to the consequences of their actions, because the North Korean government does the same? No. No one is saying that. No one has ever said that, because it doesn't make any sense. Of course all actions have consequences. Of course saying something hurtful will cause others to react negatively. No one is contesting this. What people are contesting is that a very small but highly vocal group of people who seemingly get offended by everything can demand that the rest of us force consequences on people that hurt their feelings. Right now, there's a small group of netflix employees planning some kind of protest. That is their right to do, that is a consequence for netflix producing this comedy special. The problem with the "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" line is that it always seems to be a very small group demanding that some larger group bow to their demands and force consequences on someone that wouldn't receive them otherwise. In this case, this very small group is demanding that dave chappelle or netflix suffer consequences for producing his special. But according to rotten tomatoes, and most of the comments I read on the internet, is that the overwhelming majority of people thought it was funny. "Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" means that if I call your mother a prostitute, I might get punched in the face. It does not mean that if a digital content producer airs a comedy special you don't like, that anyone who doesn't like it can demand that it be taken down and then say "well those are just the consequences!" The consequence of netflix airing this special is that some people will get offended and may cancel their subscriptions and some of their employees might protest and/or quit. That's it. Caving to the demands of those offended is not "suffering the consequences."
- taylodl 5y ago
  Netflix has agency, no? If Netflix were to take down the Dave Chappelle episode as a result of "caving to the demands of those offended" that is their right, no? I still retain my agency to cancel my Netflix subscription - I could cancel because I was offended by the episode, I could cancel because I was upset that Netflix pulled the episode. I'm really not seeing how anybody's freedoms are being diminished in this case, regardless of the outcome.

taylodl 5y ago

It's probably for the best you used a throwaway account to say something so profoundly ignorant. The consequences of which the OP spoke are social consequences, they're not legal consequences. In the United States you can say whatever you want without fear of legal reprisal, however the social consequences can be dire. That is to say, I retain the freedom to think you're an asshole and not associate with you in response to something you said. That's my right.