4 ms·

Freedom of speech entails allowing for speech you dislike and find abhorrent. Just be honest and say you are against freedom of speech, and you are in favor of

Freedom of speech entails allowing for speech you dislike and find abhorrent. Just be honest and say you are against freedom of speech, and you are in favor of compelled speech. SV types have this weird politeness shtick.

tw04 3y ago
You completely missed the point, in its entirety. A. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences. B. Just because you CAN say anything you want doesn't mean you SHOULD. Part of living in society is acting... civilized. Suggesting you should treat others with respect is now equated with hating freedom of speech? I guess our country really is in trouble...
- mise_en_place 3y ago
  The city’s board of supervisors is wasting police resources on a joke somebody said on X instead of fixing the problems of their city. Our country is way past the point of really in trouble.
CydeWeys 3y ago
Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences. You can't say whatever assholish thing you want and then claim freedom of speech as a shield when it inevitably pisses people off. This is not a freedom of speech issue, it's a "CEOs shouldn't be idiots" issue.
- dhdidiwnppppp 3y ago
  > Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences Why do people always say this? Yes, it’s true - and it’s also just flexing your power and ability to crush any speech you deem should have “consequences”. Free speech advocates are trying to push for a consistent, fairly applied position (which is very noble but imo untenable - I’m not a free speech advocate) and often met with a response that’s essentially “you have no power and I do, so if I dislike what you’re saying I’m going to crush you”.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    There's a difference between what type of consequences we're talking about. Individuals judging you and making personal decisions on how to relate to you? Or society making decisions to withdraw necessary services? This is where firmly distinguishing between (individual freedom to associate / decide) and (social responsibility to deliver a necessary service) needs more clarity. Should I be allowed to picket on public property in front of someone's house I disagree with? Or refuse to provide a service to them because I don't like them? IMHO, probably. Should the city be allowed to turn off their electricity and water? IMHO, probably not. Should VISA and Twitter be allowed to ban them? ... oof. That's a toughy.
    - malermeister 3y ago
      I agree except the last part. Of course they should. It's _their_ freedom of speech. Otherwise you'd compel them to spread speech they don't agree with.
      - ethbr1 3y ago
        Would you say there's any scale / level-of-necessary-ness at which a private party should acquire must-serve responsibilities? Such responsibilities at some point seem an inherent consequence of running an economy where (1) companies are allowed to grow as big as they want & (2) "social" functions (i.e. services to all) are sometimes only provided by private parties (there is no government/public alternative). * Leaving aside the protected-classes argument
        malermeister 3y ago
        My personal opinion is a bit complicated. I'm a socialist that thinks that companies should be transitioned into public ownership once they grow big enough. It fixes the issue you describe in addition to the myriad of other issues associated with ever-increasing privatizion of what should be the commons.
        3y ago
iinnPP 3y ago
Death threats are not free speech.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  ... yes and no? It's debatable. Imminent exhortations of others to break the law should be illegal. Past that, it's a slippery slope to pre-arresting people for thought crime. As abhorrent as some of the language is, it seems... dicey... if the US had simply banned gangster rap, NWA, fuck-the-police style music. And it's a tenuous line from threat to actual violence. Which is why "credible" is usually the standard for charging. I.e. did you make a threat and take actions to realize the threat?
- mise_en_place 3y ago
  Is that really a death threat? There’s no specific threat of violent action against an individual. We’ve all said things we aren’t proud of in the heat of the moment, especially under the influence of mind altering substances. And perhaps he was making an (albeit poor taste) joke? We’ve become far too sensitive these days.
- jacobolus 3y ago
  The comments here are pretty clearly protected by the 1st amendment. It's not a "true threat" by the standards of US jurisprudence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_threat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_threat However, just because it's narrowly legal to say something doesn't mean it's a good idea; this kind of thing does tremendous self harm to the speaker's public reputation.
ethbr1 3y ago
Absolutely. But freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech. Like people judging what you say. I'm a free speech absolutionist, but I still think neo Nazis are assholes. I think they should be allowed to say it (absent violence), but anyone who chooses to say it is going to drastically change the way I think of them.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

tw04 3y ago

You completely missed the point, in its entirety. A. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences. B. Just because you CAN say anything you want doesn't mean you SHOULD. Part of living in society is acting... civilized. Suggesting you should treat others with respect is now equated with hating freedom of speech? I guess our country really is in trouble...

mise_en_place 3y ago
The city’s board of supervisors is wasting police resources on a joke somebody said on X instead of fixing the problems of their city. Our country is way past the point of really in trouble.

CydeWeys 3y ago

Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences. You can't say whatever assholish thing you want and then claim freedom of speech as a shield when it inevitably pisses people off. This is not a freedom of speech issue, it's a "CEOs shouldn't be idiots" issue.

dhdidiwnppppp 3y ago
> Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences Why do people always say this? Yes, it’s true - and it’s also just flexing your power and ability to crush any speech you deem should have “consequences”. Free speech advocates are trying to push for a consistent, fairly applied position (which is very noble but imo untenable - I’m not a free speech advocate) and often met with a response that’s essentially “you have no power and I do, so if I dislike what you’re saying I’m going to crush you”.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  There's a difference between what type of consequences we're talking about. Individuals judging you and making personal decisions on how to relate to you? Or society making decisions to withdraw necessary services? This is where firmly distinguishing between (individual freedom to associate / decide) and (social responsibility to deliver a necessary service) needs more clarity. Should I be allowed to picket on public property in front of someone's house I disagree with? Or refuse to provide a service to them because I don't like them? IMHO, probably. Should the city be allowed to turn off their electricity and water? IMHO, probably not. Should VISA and Twitter be allowed to ban them? ... oof. That's a toughy.
  - malermeister 3y ago
    I agree except the last part. Of course they should. It's _their_ freedom of speech. Otherwise you'd compel them to spread speech they don't agree with.
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      Would you say there's any scale / level-of-necessary-ness at which a private party should acquire must-serve responsibilities? Such responsibilities at some point seem an inherent consequence of running an economy where (1) companies are allowed to grow as big as they want & (2) "social" functions (i.e. services to all) are sometimes only provided by private parties (there is no government/public alternative). * Leaving aside the protected-classes argument
      - malermeister 3y ago
        My personal opinion is a bit complicated. I'm a socialist that thinks that companies should be transitioned into public ownership once they grow big enough. It fixes the issue you describe in addition to the myriad of other issues associated with ever-increasing privatizion of what should be the commons.
        3y ago

iinnPP 3y ago

Death threats are not free speech.

ethbr1 3y ago
... yes and no? It's debatable. Imminent exhortations of others to break the law should be illegal. Past that, it's a slippery slope to pre-arresting people for thought crime. As abhorrent as some of the language is, it seems... dicey... if the US had simply banned gangster rap, NWA, fuck-the-police style music. And it's a tenuous line from threat to actual violence. Which is why "credible" is usually the standard for charging. I.e. did you make a threat and take actions to realize the threat?
mise_en_place 3y ago
Is that really a death threat? There’s no specific threat of violent action against an individual. We’ve all said things we aren’t proud of in the heat of the moment, especially under the influence of mind altering substances. And perhaps he was making an (albeit poor taste) joke? We’ve become far too sensitive these days.
jacobolus 3y ago
The comments here are pretty clearly protected by the 1st amendment. It's not a "true threat" by the standards of US jurisprudence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_threat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_threat However, just because it's narrowly legal to say something doesn't mean it's a good idea; this kind of thing does tremendous self harm to the speaker's public reputation.

ethbr1 3y ago

Absolutely. But freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech. Like people judging what you say. I'm a free speech absolutionist, but I still think neo Nazis are assholes. I think they should be allowed to say it (absent violence), but anyone who chooses to say it is going to drastically change the way I think of them.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]