4 ms·

> Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences. Actually, the freedom is freedom from consequences (other than speech in return or being listened to

> Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences. Actually, the freedom is freedom from consequences (other than speech in return or being listened to or not).

ceejayoz 4y ago
That would require others losing their freedoms. If you're a dick, I need the freedom to say so, to encourage a boycott of your restaurant, to not invite you to parties, to protest your public appearances. All of those are consequences and important freedoms.
- yencabulator 4y ago
  That's the "speech in return" part.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    Then we need to discuss what definition of "consequences" you're using.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      I gave the definition but I'll write it slightly differently if it wasn't clear before. Speech is free when the consequences are: - it is not listened to - it is listened to - there is speech in return to the speaker
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        If you consider boycotts and being shunned by your social circle "speech in return", I suppose we agree. I'd tend to consider those to be consequences of free speech, though.
        yencabulator 4y ago
        You can use your free speech to tell others not to do business with X. When enough people are convinced by that, it's a boycott.
        brigandish 4y ago
        The part of free speech that is always in question is the free part. Hence, consequences, in this context, are linked to what affects that freedom, otherwise they're just part of being in a reality where everything is caused and hence has consequences. Thus, calling my dog back and it runs to me is not a consequence of free speech in the way we're discussing it. Boycotts are based on the freedom to buy what one wants, but when they are mandated then they're not. They can be used to try and stop someone speaking, then they're against free speech. If they're not used in that way then fine. Being shunned is not being spoken to or listened to which is freedom of speech.
- brigandish 4y ago
  Were you forced to invite them before their speech? No, your freedom of association is not affected by someone else's free speech. Burn those RSVPs all you like. If you want to go down the everything has consequences route then there is no distinction between free speech and anything else in the universe so it's not really worth bothering with.

> Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences. Actually, the freedom is freedom from consequences (other than speech in return or being listened to or not).

ceejayoz 4y ago

That would require others losing their freedoms. If you're a dick, I need the freedom to say so, to encourage a boycott of your restaurant, to not invite you to parties, to protest your public appearances. All of those are consequences and important freedoms.

yencabulator 4y ago
That's the "speech in return" part.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Then we need to discuss what definition of "consequences" you're using.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    I gave the definition but I'll write it slightly differently if it wasn't clear before. Speech is free when the consequences are: - it is not listened to - it is listened to - there is speech in return to the speaker
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      If you consider boycotts and being shunned by your social circle "speech in return", I suppose we agree. I'd tend to consider those to be consequences of free speech, though.
      - yencabulator 4y ago
        You can use your free speech to tell others not to do business with X. When enough people are convinced by that, it's a boycott.
      - brigandish 4y ago
        The part of free speech that is always in question is the free part. Hence, consequences, in this context, are linked to what affects that freedom, otherwise they're just part of being in a reality where everything is caused and hence has consequences. Thus, calling my dog back and it runs to me is not a consequence of free speech in the way we're discussing it. Boycotts are based on the freedom to buy what one wants, but when they are mandated then they're not. They can be used to try and stop someone speaking, then they're against free speech. If they're not used in that way then fine. Being shunned is not being spoken to or listened to which is freedom of speech.
brigandish 4y ago
Were you forced to invite them before their speech? No, your freedom of association is not affected by someone else's free speech. Burn those RSVPs all you like. If you want to go down the everything has consequences route then there is no distinction between free speech and anything else in the universe so it's not really worth bothering with.