3 ms·
> Since it also needs to be said, the fact that you have a constitutional right to say hateful things does not mean you should or that you have a right not to b
by jl6 4y ago
> Since it also needs to be said, the fact that you have a constitutional right to say hateful things does not mean you should or that you have a right not to be judged by other people if you choose to exercise this particular right.
This is the interesting part of the debate. It is commonly stated that freedom of speech doesn’t equal freedom from consequences, and it’s hard to imagine a law that could guarantee anyone freedom from the consequences of their speech, but is there a point where the consequences become disproportionate?
The first amendment only limits government, but there are private entities which have government-like powers in some circumstances. For example, the church. Historically if you said something the church didn’t like, you might risk shunning, or worse. People have lost livelihoods and been shut out of civic society for using speech in opposition to religious authority. Is that a legitimate and proportionate consequence of speech?
The church in America is in decline, but religiosity has found new homes amongst political mobs, who can wield their powers against free speech. They can put pressure on the private companies that act as the government of the internet. All while acting in a private, non-governmental capacity, so it’s not censorship, it’s just consequences, right?
Should we seek to limit the consequences that churches can impose?
- puffoflogic 4y ago> It is commonly stated that freedom of speech doesn’t equal freedom from consequences, Like many commonly stated things, this is completely wrong. Freedom from consequences is the only possible thing that "freedom of speech" could mean. Essentially every living person has some way of communicating and so if freedom of speech weren't freedom from consequences, then every living person has freedom of speech definitionally. "Freedom of speech" wouldn't mean anything then. Persons living under the most oppressive regime would, by this flawed definition, have perfect freedom of speech. The common but wrong idea stems from fundamentally confusing "freedom of speech" and "the first amendment to the United States Constitution". What it's attempting to say is that the 1A doesn't guarantee that purely private actors can't find a way to penalize you for your speech. However, what it gets wrong is that such penalties would still be an abrogation of freedom of speech, but a kind of freedom of speech which isn't protected by 1A. Just because that kind of freedom of speech [against private actors] isn't guaranteed by 1A, doesn't mean it's not valuable. Many of us believe this kind of freedom of speech is also valuable.