5 ms·

The right to free speech never means freedom from consequences of that speech.

by bdcravens 3y ago

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
astrange 3y ago
Yes it does. Consequences are the only thing you can be free from.
- Zetice 3y ago
  No it doesn’t, you can easily be prevented from speaking in the first place.
  - pessimizer 3y ago
    Are you talking about cutting people's tongues out, or prior restraint? Because you don't know who to restrain if they haven't already said something. As a consequence of things you've said in the past, or things that you have just said and have not yet been distributed, you can have that distribution limited or prevented. All of them are consequences.
    - Zetice 3y ago
      If your point is causality exists, okay. If your point is that the 1st amendment is an absolute freedom of speech, you couldn't be more wrong.
  - astrange 3y ago
    And in this case he is being prevented from future speech acts, demonstrating another category of things it doesn't protect you from.
- maximinus_thrax 3y ago
  I'm a naturalized American citizen who figured out what free speech actually means when studying for the civics test. I suggest everyone try it out if only to dispel the popular myth of 'free speech means everyone can say whatever whenever'.
  - pessimizer 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - maximinus_thrax 3y ago
      > Why don't you explain it Why should I? Just reading the wikipedia page on the first amendment would clarify most if not all popular culture myths about freedom of speech in America.
      - predictabl3 3y ago
        It would undermine the single implicit response and rallying crying used by a bunch of (certain people) right now, so, there's a bit of fingers-in-ears going in.
    - Zetice 3y ago
      Why would you believe him even if he took the time? Demanding people explain basic shit to you is a form of trolling, just FYI.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
function_seven 3y ago
Never? What then does the word “right” mean in this sentence? I thought by definition, if you have the right to do something, the authorities cannot punish you for exercising that right. No, what’s happening here is that SBF is in pretrial custody, and when a defendant is in that situation, they lose many of their constitutional rights. Courts assume the level of control that they need to ensure a fair trial. Outside of certain circumstances, the 1st Amendment does mean that you are free from official consequences for your speech, such that it is protected. This is why the NYT will never see government sanction for their publishing Caroline’s diary. SBF obviously has, though. (FWIW, your comment is usually used to defend consequences imposed by other members of society, not the government)
pessimizer 3y ago
You're free to speak but I'm free to jail and execute you for it? edit: this is literally no one's idea of free speech.
- bdcravens 3y ago
  You, no. The state according to the established laws? Yes. Terroristic threat, for example. In this case, SBF had voluntarily limited his speech in order to be out of jail for a crime he was already arrested for.
  - drewmol 3y ago
    >Yes. Terroristic threat, for example. This is such an important point. The PATRIOT Act threw protections for citizens out the window in cases of terrorism (no evidence required). DOD requires no trials, no warrants, only notifying judges with an accompanying gag-order and no input or oversight from them (making it illegal for them to divulge suspected abuses) to wiretap or kill anyone. President Obama used a drone strike to explode a 16 y/o boy (a US citizen) in Yemen[0]. This is only one of the cases we know about, and it’s impossible to know the extent it’s been used. I know that’s not the case here, but it is such a huge problem that needs to be fixed legislatively - I felt it necessary to comment. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Aw...
    - bdcravens 3y ago
      Keep in mind I'm not talking about the popular definition of "terrorism". "Terroristic threat" is literally telling someone you are going to hurt them or someone else, and existed well before the events of 9/11. It is a crime punishable at the state level. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroristic_threat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroristic_threat
puzzledobserver 3y ago
I have always found this refrain about freedom of speech vs freedom from consequences to be grating. I can think of only three categories of things a government can do: 1. Prevent the words from being spoken in the first place. This includes things like gag orders, confiscating computers and internet connections, literally gagging someone, or locking them in jail. 2. Delete the words, once spoken, from the public record. 3. Punish the person for having spoken the words. I.e., the consequences. This includes things like deleting their accounts, placing them in jail, confiscating newspapers, burning books, etc. When the constitution guarantees freedom of speech, which of these categories of actions do you think it restricts? IANAL, but my understanding is that the government retains the right to restrict speech through all three categories (for national security, prurient interest, integrity of court trials, etc.), but is broadly restricted from having unabridged power in all of them.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> The right to free speech never means freedom from consequences of that speech. To the extent that there is a freedom of speech it is exactly a freedom from government imposed consequences for that speech. (The statement is true in the context of private social consequences, not government punishment.) OTOH, being arrested for a crime pending trial, even when released on bail, involves a loss of liberty (with due process of law), and that can include, insofar as is necessary for the administration of justice, limits on free speech.
- bdcravens 3y ago
  > To the extent that there is a freedom of speech it is exactly a freedom from government imposed consequences for that speech. Employees of the government are regularly punished for revealing secrets of the government. Threats to others by private citizens are also punishable by the government. > OTOH, being arrested for a crime pending trial, even when released on bail, involves a loss of liberty (with due process of law), and that can include, insofar as is necessary for the administration of justice, limits on free speech. Correct, in the same sense that felons can lose their 2nd amendment (and others, such as voting) rights.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Employees of the government are regularly punished for revealing secrets of the government. Yes, because of limits on free speech, not becauase speech can be both within the scope of protected free speech but also have government-imposed consequences.

The right to free speech never means freedom from consequences of that speech.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

astrange 3y ago

Yes it does. Consequences are the only thing you can be free from.

Zetice 3y ago
No it doesn’t, you can easily be prevented from speaking in the first place.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  Are you talking about cutting people's tongues out, or prior restraint? Because you don't know who to restrain if they haven't already said something. As a consequence of things you've said in the past, or things that you have just said and have not yet been distributed, you can have that distribution limited or prevented. All of them are consequences.
  - Zetice 3y ago
    If your point is causality exists, okay. If your point is that the 1st amendment is an absolute freedom of speech, you couldn't be more wrong.
- astrange 3y ago
  And in this case he is being prevented from future speech acts, demonstrating another category of things it doesn't protect you from.
maximinus_thrax 3y ago
I'm a naturalized American citizen who figured out what free speech actually means when studying for the civics test. I suggest everyone try it out if only to dispel the popular myth of 'free speech means everyone can say whatever whenever'.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - maximinus_thrax 3y ago
    > Why don't you explain it Why should I? Just reading the wikipedia page on the first amendment would clarify most if not all popular culture myths about freedom of speech in America.
    - predictabl3 3y ago
      It would undermine the single implicit response and rallying crying used by a bunch of (certain people) right now, so, there's a bit of fingers-in-ears going in.
  - Zetice 3y ago
    Why would you believe him even if he took the time? Demanding people explain basic shit to you is a form of trolling, just FYI.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

function_seven 3y ago

Never? What then does the word “right” mean in this sentence? I thought by definition, if you have the right to do something, the authorities cannot punish you for exercising that right. No, what’s happening here is that SBF is in pretrial custody, and when a defendant is in that situation, they lose many of their constitutional rights. Courts assume the level of control that they need to ensure a fair trial. Outside of certain circumstances, the 1st Amendment does mean that you are free from official consequences for your speech, such that it is protected. This is why the NYT will never see government sanction for their publishing Caroline’s diary. SBF obviously has, though. (FWIW, your comment is usually used to defend consequences imposed by other members of society, not the government)

pessimizer 3y ago

You're free to speak but I'm free to jail and execute you for it? edit: this is literally no one's idea of free speech.

bdcravens 3y ago
You, no. The state according to the established laws? Yes. Terroristic threat, for example. In this case, SBF had voluntarily limited his speech in order to be out of jail for a crime he was already arrested for.
- drewmol 3y ago
  >Yes. Terroristic threat, for example. This is such an important point. The PATRIOT Act threw protections for citizens out the window in cases of terrorism (no evidence required). DOD requires no trials, no warrants, only notifying judges with an accompanying gag-order and no input or oversight from them (making it illegal for them to divulge suspected abuses) to wiretap or kill anyone. President Obama used a drone strike to explode a 16 y/o boy (a US citizen) in Yemen[0]. This is only one of the cases we know about, and it’s impossible to know the extent it’s been used. I know that’s not the case here, but it is such a huge problem that needs to be fixed legislatively - I felt it necessary to comment. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Aw...
  - bdcravens 3y ago
    Keep in mind I'm not talking about the popular definition of "terrorism". "Terroristic threat" is literally telling someone you are going to hurt them or someone else, and existed well before the events of 9/11. It is a crime punishable at the state level. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroristic_threat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroristic_threat

puzzledobserver 3y ago

I have always found this refrain about freedom of speech vs freedom from consequences to be grating. I can think of only three categories of things a government can do: 1. Prevent the words from being spoken in the first place. This includes things like gag orders, confiscating computers and internet connections, literally gagging someone, or locking them in jail. 2. Delete the words, once spoken, from the public record. 3. Punish the person for having spoken the words. I.e., the consequences. This includes things like deleting their accounts, placing them in jail, confiscating newspapers, burning books, etc. When the constitution guarantees freedom of speech, which of these categories of actions do you think it restricts? IANAL, but my understanding is that the government retains the right to restrict speech through all three categories (for national security, prurient interest, integrity of court trials, etc.), but is broadly restricted from having unabridged power in all of them.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> The right to free speech never means freedom from consequences of that speech. To the extent that there is a freedom of speech it is exactly a freedom from government imposed consequences for that speech. (The statement is true in the context of private social consequences, not government punishment.) OTOH, being arrested for a crime pending trial, even when released on bail, involves a loss of liberty (with due process of law), and that can include, insofar as is necessary for the administration of justice, limits on free speech.

bdcravens 3y ago
> To the extent that there is a freedom of speech it is exactly a freedom from government imposed consequences for that speech. Employees of the government are regularly punished for revealing secrets of the government. Threats to others by private citizens are also punishable by the government. > OTOH, being arrested for a crime pending trial, even when released on bail, involves a loss of liberty (with due process of law), and that can include, insofar as is necessary for the administration of justice, limits on free speech. Correct, in the same sense that felons can lose their 2nd amendment (and others, such as voting) rights.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Employees of the government are regularly punished for revealing secrets of the government. Yes, because of limits on free speech, not becauase speech can be both within the scope of protected free speech but also have government-imposed consequences.