4 ms·

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. Specifically when it concerns consequences of libel and defamation. Freedom of speech is the freedom to expr

by leobg 3y ago

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. Specifically when it concerns consequences of libel and defamation. Freedom of speech is the freedom to express opinions and debate. And even that is no guarantee that what do you say it will be liked by others, or won’t get you in trouble with others.

MallocVoidstar 3y ago
Musk does believe that freedom of speech means freedom from consequences. Look at his promise that anyone fired for posts on X will receive legal defense: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1688022163574439937 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1688022163574439937 Though as far as I know, the only thing he's actually done since that promise is this: https://www.ft.com/content/9642f1a5-e1b4-41ec-86f3-30e6d02e5f1b https://www.ft.com/content/9642f1a5-e1b4-41ec-86f3-30e6d02e5... which definitely isn't what people expected him to defend.
eviks 3y ago
Actually, the whole point of having a legally protected freedom is specifically to avoid some serious consequences (you don't have the freedom to "debate" anything if you're sued into bankruptcy after expressing your "opinion") But you've shifted your response far enough from the court elephant in the room into the irrelevant "liked by others" territory that it may even be parsed as not a contradiction
- leobg 3y ago
  Serious consequences wrt the state. Not other citizens. And those can use the legal system to sue you. For "speech" in terms of facts, the state will help a citizen get a retraction and/or damages if the facts were objectively wrong. For opinions, only if they were so crude that they attacked the human rather than the position.
  - CaptainZapp 3y ago
    > For "speech" in terms of facts, the state will help a citizen get a retraction and/or damages if the facts were objectively wrong So, what's "objectively wrong" about Media Matters reporting? They documented ads from blue chip companies displayed on the side of evil antisemite contents and outright nazi pages. It's a fact that Musk "you speak the truth" bro'd to a viciously antisemite post. I, for one, are no more willing to give Mr. Musk the benefit of the doubt. When it walks like an antisemite, talks like an antisemite and quaks like an antisemite, then, no shit! we're dealing with an antisemite.
    - leobg 3y ago
      The benefit of the doubt is another thing that is in your constitution. Jewish people have been driven from their homelands, have had their livelihoods shattered, and have been burned, shot, and starved to death. Anybody who uses the term antisemitism lightly should take a minute or two to think about whether he is showing respect or disrespect to those people and families who are no longer with us.
  - eviks 3y ago
    Yes, other citizens - the legal system is the system of the state, so if you're free from consequences wrt the state, you're by definition free from court-imposed consequences wrt other citizens. (defamation threshold is also not so low as to include any ad hominem)
    - leobg 3y ago
      So Elizabeth Holmes should have gone free? More so, if you were the victim of fraud, you should not be able to get your money back in court, because a lie is speech, and speech must always be free from state intervention?
LightHugger 3y ago
... How would you like your consequences delivered today for making such an absurd comment? Freedom of speech is by definition freedom from many kinds of consequences. Who are you people that keep repeating this nonsense like mindless drones?
- leobg 3y ago
  I am a lawyer and have actually fought such issues (freedom of speech vs libel) in court.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  > Freedom of speech is by definition freedom from many kinds of consequences. The only consequences the First Amendment explicitly protects you from are legislative ones. By definition, it only protects you from the government.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - LightHugger 3y ago
    Freedom of speech is not the first amendment, are you not aware of the difference? You quoted me but you're not really replying to me.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]

by leobg 3y ago

MallocVoidstar 3y ago

Musk does believe that freedom of speech means freedom from consequences. Look at his promise that anyone fired for posts on X will receive legal defense: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1688022163574439937 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1688022163574439937 Though as far as I know, the only thing he's actually done since that promise is this: https://www.ft.com/content/9642f1a5-e1b4-41ec-86f3-30e6d02e5f1b https://www.ft.com/content/9642f1a5-e1b4-41ec-86f3-30e6d02e5... which definitely isn't what people expected him to defend.

eviks 3y ago

Actually, the whole point of having a legally protected freedom is specifically to avoid some serious consequences (you don't have the freedom to "debate" anything if you're sued into bankruptcy after expressing your "opinion") But you've shifted your response far enough from the court elephant in the room into the irrelevant "liked by others" territory that it may even be parsed as not a contradiction

leobg 3y ago
Serious consequences wrt the state. Not other citizens. And those can use the legal system to sue you. For "speech" in terms of facts, the state will help a citizen get a retraction and/or damages if the facts were objectively wrong. For opinions, only if they were so crude that they attacked the human rather than the position.
- CaptainZapp 3y ago
  > For "speech" in terms of facts, the state will help a citizen get a retraction and/or damages if the facts were objectively wrong So, what's "objectively wrong" about Media Matters reporting? They documented ads from blue chip companies displayed on the side of evil antisemite contents and outright nazi pages. It's a fact that Musk "you speak the truth" bro'd to a viciously antisemite post. I, for one, are no more willing to give Mr. Musk the benefit of the doubt. When it walks like an antisemite, talks like an antisemite and quaks like an antisemite, then, no shit! we're dealing with an antisemite.
  - leobg 3y ago
    The benefit of the doubt is another thing that is in your constitution. Jewish people have been driven from their homelands, have had their livelihoods shattered, and have been burned, shot, and starved to death. Anybody who uses the term antisemitism lightly should take a minute or two to think about whether he is showing respect or disrespect to those people and families who are no longer with us.
- eviks 3y ago
  Yes, other citizens - the legal system is the system of the state, so if you're free from consequences wrt the state, you're by definition free from court-imposed consequences wrt other citizens. (defamation threshold is also not so low as to include any ad hominem)
  - leobg 3y ago
    So Elizabeth Holmes should have gone free? More so, if you were the victim of fraud, you should not be able to get your money back in court, because a lie is speech, and speech must always be free from state intervention?

LightHugger 3y ago

... How would you like your consequences delivered today for making such an absurd comment? Freedom of speech is by definition freedom from many kinds of consequences. Who are you people that keep repeating this nonsense like mindless drones?

leobg 3y ago
I am a lawyer and have actually fought such issues (freedom of speech vs libel) in court.
smoldesu 3y ago
> Freedom of speech is by definition freedom from many kinds of consequences. The only consequences the First Amendment explicitly protects you from are legislative ones. By definition, it only protects you from the government.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- LightHugger 3y ago
  Freedom of speech is not the first amendment, are you not aware of the difference? You quoted me but you're not really replying to me.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]