6 ms·
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of said speech when the majority of the public thinks you’re a raging asshole.
by TylerE 4y ago
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of said speech when the majority of the public thinks you’re a raging asshole.
- mensetmanusman 4y agoFreedom of speech in private should mean free from consequences.
- TylerE 4y agoA public street or a tv interview isn't in privste.
- matai_kolila 4y agoDepends on how private. Speech is communication, which almost always necessitates more than one person, and the other people are perfectly within their own rights to provide some consequences to the speech they hear in private.
- mensetmanusman 4y agoI disagree, because this mindset leads to what happened under Mao where anything against the party was punishable and family members would turn you in.
- matai_kolila 4y agoWhat? No. That's the government acting in response to speech, not other people expressing themselves. Your argument forgets that it's also free speech to react to something objectionable. If the government forced me to do business with you without my consent, that would be compelled association, which is more similar to how Mao's government behaved in the 50s.
- mynameisbob 4y agoUmm no. Unless you’re in a looked soundproof room talking to yourself speech is a social activity and no one gets to dictate how others interpret and react to your speech.
- mensetmanusman 4y agoNote that this mindset leads to what happened under Mao with children ratting out parents etc.
- Volundr 4y agoShould it? If I say something to someone in private that causes them to think I'm a raging asshole, should they not be free to share it with others, and should that not have consequences for me?
- mensetmanusman 4y agoUnder the SS kids would eat out their parents. Remember that you have to assume true speech could also be punished if you normalize the behavior.
- paulryanrogers 4y agoDo you mean "free from public consequences"? For example, if I say something controversial to my SO at home it shouldn't cause me to get fired because Alexa overheard and its recording leaked? I suspect there is a lot of nuance to both sides here. Like if the president of the US tells racist jokes to their lover in private, then public consequences after a tell-all book may be in order. (By public I mean people may chose to vote them out.)
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y agoCan we stop with this stupidity please? What if yer dog gets mad at you yelling at the television and bites you, that was a consequence, right? so ha! I've totally proven how silly you are for thinking that you should be able to make a statement to yourself about muhammed without actors in the middle east calling for your death! ---- When people talk about consequences for saying stupid things, this is exactly what they're talking about. Embarrassment for saying completely assinine things, not losing your ability to support yourself because you made a stupid joke when you were 14. If you can't understand the difference between the two, that's a you problem.
- lern_too_spel 4y agoYou can apologize for making a stupid joke when you were 14, and you won't lose the ability to support yourself. People like Brendan Eich doubled down on being assholes, saying essentially that they would donate to campaigns to retroactively make gay marriage illegal again. Now he's a crypto grifter.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y agoI've seen a story of a man losing his business because his daughter made a stupid joke. You can bury your head in the sand and pretend this sort of damage isn't happening regularly, but the rest of us choose not to.
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
- throwaway23597 4y agoSee, you scare me. Should private speech in the home have consequences? Speech that not only did you not mean to make public, but you didn't even realize could possibly become public? That's the road to hell for our society.
- matai_kolila 4y agoWhat even is a “private speech”? Are you worried Alexa is listening to you as you rant to yourself?
- olyjohn 4y agoIt's not a private speech, smartass. It's private speech. As in speech that is private. As in, when you're in the privacy of your own home, and you're expressing yourself to yourself or others, that would be private speech. Speech that is not directed to a public audience. Even when you talk to yourself in your mind, that is your own private speech.
- matai_kolila 4y agoNope, once you involve others, you involve consequences, as it is now their free speech (and free association) that often generates those consequences.
- throwaway23597 4y ago> Are you worried Alexa is listening to you as you rant to yourself? Well, I mean, quite literally, it is. It's always listening to you, and that's how it knows when you say "Alexa". And IIUC all these audio recordings are sent right to AWS and stored indefinitely.
- greesil 4y ago"Alexa, would you like to hear my racist tirade?
- canadiantim 4y agoI always found the people who say “Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences” are the authoritarian assholes, but that may just be me.
- TylerE 4y agoI'm just tired of bullies claiming to be victims. It's such bullshit.
- canadiantim 4y agoSame
- chasil 4y agoA current standard for free speech within the United States is the legal standard of "imminent lawless action." This replaced the previous standard of "clear and present danger." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
- HideousKojima 4y agoAnd just try saying it about all sorts of other freedoms and see how chilling it sounds: "freedom of the press is not freedom from consequences."
- mmcgaha 4y agoDamn I think you just changed my opinion.
- rnk 4y agoExplain what about that is chilling. If I make false and defamatory statements in a newspaper (person xyz is a criminal who stole money, committed crimes against children, whatever), if it is not true you can be sued. Is that wrong, you have hurt their public character? But it's nontrivial to get a conviction, there seems to be a reasonable balance. If you say "Elon Musk person is a horrible leader, scares me, makes bad choices, kills baby bunny rabbits for fun" he likely won't win a suit - but it would be costly to defend yourself.
- janalsncm 4y agoDoesn’t this beg the question of what exactly “consequences” means? Most people would agree free speech doesn’t mean a local restaurant has to serve you. But what about other businesses? Can dentists refuse to treat you? Can hospitals refuse to give you life saving treatments based on your political views? Many hospitals in the US are private businesses. Most people agree that social networks can kick you out. But what about ISPs? Can they refuse your business? And if ISPs can refuse your business, what about water or electricity companies? Certainly freedom of speech means freedom from certain consequences. As codified in the First Amendment it means freedom from certain legal consequences. Of course freedom of speech is broader than 1A though.
- ceejayoz 4y ago> Can dentists refuse to treat you? Yes. > Can hospitals refuse to give you life saving treatments based on your political views? Ask a Catholic hospital to do an abortion. > And if ISPs can refuse your business, what about water or electricity companies? We have specific law for these sorts of scenarios. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utility
- janalsncm 4y agoI wouldn’t consider Catholic hospitals abortions to be the same situation. They don’t give abortions to anyone. That’s not the same as refusing a particular patient because they don’t like things that patient has said in the past.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 4y agoBut there have been CVS/Walgreens pharmacists who refuse to offer birth control or the morning after pill.
- janalsncm 4y agoStill, that’s not refusing service to a particular customer based on that customer’s speech. I believe that pharmacist would refuse any customer. My question is about a pharmacy which would refuse e.g. Alex Jones because of things he’s said in the past.
- rhino369 4y agoDepends on what you mean by consequences. If the consequence is people thinking you are a raging asshole sure. If it's people strongly disagreeing with you, sure. But if consequences means there is a coordinated effort among major corporations to punish and prevent you from speaking by de-platforming you or anyone who gives you a platform--that isn't freedom of speech (regardless of whether its allowed under the 1st amendment or not). US social media banned covid misinformation as defined by US health officials. Why is banning covid misinformation as defined by Chinese health officials any different? Shit, the Chinese policy isn't even that different than the US's view 18 months ago--US lockdown protestors were vilified.
- astrange 4y agoFreedom of speech has to mean freedom from consequences; consequences are the only thing you can be free from. There might be some difference between “consequences to the message” and “consequences to the speaker” but I’ve never seen anyone try to tell those apart.