4 ms·

To quote some of the people I know who would be impacted the most by this: > Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. If they'd not spend the last

To quote some of the people I know who would be impacted the most by this: > Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. If they'd not spend the last 10 years purging the old guard who they called free speech fanatics they'd have someone in their corner. Now I just have the world tiniest violin for them. Or to use much better words than mine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUqytjlHNIM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUqytjlHNIM

nick486 2y ago
>> Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. I love this line. Its like a riff on the old radio Yerevan joke. > Q: What is the difference between the Constitutions of the USA and USSR? Both guarantee freedom of speech. > A: Yes, and the US Constitution also guarantees freedom after speech.
- llm_trw 2y ago
  I got called a Russian bot on the world news subreddit for using that joke, then banned for disinformation, then got muted for 30 days after I asked what I'd said that was disinformation. Or to use another Radio Yerevan joke: Q: Is it true that Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov from Moscow won a car in a lottery? A: In principle yes, but: it wasn't Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov but Aleksander Aleksandrovich Aleksandrov; he is not from Moscow but from Odessa; it was not a car but a bicycle; he didn't win it, but it was stolen from him.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
xoa 2y ago
It's unfortunate you've chosen to engage in your own anti-speech obfuscation here though. >Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. The reason this line is bad is because it's wrong and misused from multiple directions due to overloading/being vague with "consequences". Freedom of speech is freedom from VIOLENT, or directly violent adjacent [0], consequences, public or private. But SOCIAL consequences aren't infringement on free speech rights, they are exercising free speech rights. The exact same freedom of speech and association that gives you the right to say something offensive also gives everyone else the right to say offensive things back and/or never have anything to do with you again. Free speech culture and principles typically encourage attempting to maintain a more open and curious mind then you are required to, and to use your rights with appropriate measure and discretion. And of course social/economic consequences go round and round, too harsh a reaction may result in others treating the one who is judged to have been too harsh with consequences in turn, and on and on. That's the vibrant market of ideas. But it's false if someone brings this line up to support or excuse violent speech suppression, and it's also false if someone brings this up sarcastically and tries to equate bans from private soap boxes, people refusing to offer support, people offering criticism, etc with use of violence. If you get banned from some web forum, which is said web forum's freedom of speech, and then whine about your free speech rights, and someone says "that doesn't give you freedom from consequences" you should recognize they're completely correct as far as social consequences go, and would be completely wrong if they said you should get fined or imprisoned or beat up or the like. I consider myself a "free speech absolutist", but that's within a wholistic understanding of the whole system of free speech applying to everyone with infinite regression. The phase has gotten a bad name from hypocrites who call themselves that while then complaining loudly about others exercising their free speech (which of course is itself free speech). ---- 0: For example if government imposes a fine someone might say that's not violence, but the reason it's a "fine" not a "suggestion" is that it's backed by the government's general monopoly on violence. What makes a law a law is what happens if you don't go along with it. It can be nested many levels deep, and involve discretion and resource limits, but ultimately it always ends up with violence.
- llm_trw 2y ago
  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385 I've worked with people who are outraged over what is happening with Hezbollah protestors that were 100% behind the above. One of the big reasons why I rather enjoy working remotely is that I don't have to interact with those people more than looking at their mastodon feeds to see just how unhinged they are once a month for entertainment purposes.

nick486 2y ago

>> Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. I love this line. Its like a riff on the old radio Yerevan joke. > Q: What is the difference between the Constitutions of the USA and USSR? Both guarantee freedom of speech. > A: Yes, and the US Constitution also guarantees freedom after speech.

llm_trw 2y ago
I got called a Russian bot on the world news subreddit for using that joke, then banned for disinformation, then got muted for 30 days after I asked what I'd said that was disinformation. Or to use another Radio Yerevan joke: Q: Is it true that Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov from Moscow won a car in a lottery? A: In principle yes, but: it wasn't Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov but Aleksander Aleksandrovich Aleksandrov; he is not from Moscow but from Odessa; it was not a car but a bicycle; he didn't win it, but it was stolen from him.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

xoa 2y ago

It's unfortunate you've chosen to engage in your own anti-speech obfuscation here though. >Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. The reason this line is bad is because it's wrong and misused from multiple directions due to overloading/being vague with "consequences". Freedom of speech is freedom from VIOLENT, or directly violent adjacent [0], consequences, public or private. But SOCIAL consequences aren't infringement on free speech rights, they are exercising free speech rights. The exact same freedom of speech and association that gives you the right to say something offensive also gives everyone else the right to say offensive things back and/or never have anything to do with you again. Free speech culture and principles typically encourage attempting to maintain a more open and curious mind then you are required to, and to use your rights with appropriate measure and discretion. And of course social/economic consequences go round and round, too harsh a reaction may result in others treating the one who is judged to have been too harsh with consequences in turn, and on and on. That's the vibrant market of ideas. But it's false if someone brings this line up to support or excuse violent speech suppression, and it's also false if someone brings this up sarcastically and tries to equate bans from private soap boxes, people refusing to offer support, people offering criticism, etc with use of violence. If you get banned from some web forum, which is said web forum's freedom of speech, and then whine about your free speech rights, and someone says "that doesn't give you freedom from consequences" you should recognize they're completely correct as far as social consequences go, and would be completely wrong if they said you should get fined or imprisoned or beat up or the like. I consider myself a "free speech absolutist", but that's within a wholistic understanding of the whole system of free speech applying to everyone with infinite regression. The phase has gotten a bad name from hypocrites who call themselves that while then complaining loudly about others exercising their free speech (which of course is itself free speech). ---- 0: For example if government imposes a fine someone might say that's not violence, but the reason it's a "fine" not a "suggestion" is that it's backed by the government's general monopoly on violence. What makes a law a law is what happens if you don't go along with it. It can be nested many levels deep, and involve discretion and resource limits, but ultimately it always ends up with violence.

llm_trw 2y ago
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385 I've worked with people who are outraged over what is happening with Hezbollah protestors that were 100% behind the above. One of the big reasons why I rather enjoy working remotely is that I don't have to interact with those people more than looking at their mastodon feeds to see just how unhinged they are once a month for entertainment purposes.