4 ms·

Unlimited free speech for everyone, but consequences for saying things that harm or offend. If you say "Democrats suck", don't expect them to buy your product.

Unlimited free speech for everyone, but consequences for saying things that harm or offend. If you say "Democrats suck", don't expect them to buy your product. If you say "God doesn't exist," don't expect Christians to come to your business. If you say "I hate gays", expect to get fired from your medical clinic job. Have free speech, but use it wisely. Having free speech serves to diffuse social tension. It ensures we don't wind up as cattle, like in 1984. Just don't expect that you can praise the death of certain people and expect everyone to love you for it. Maybe above all you should be kind. Regardless of your politics. Articulate what you don't like with your free speech, but don't be an asshole. Unfortunately social media encourages fast engagement with little nuance, so we see a sewer instead of a noble land of open thought and debate. But we shouldn't throw free speech out with the bath water.

zahlman 1y ago
> consequences for saying things that harm or offend. Appropriate consequences. Death is never an appropriate consequence for this. Loss of employment is only appropriate where the speech demonstrates an inability to do the job properly.
- zingababba 1y ago
  I mean, if a surgeon for instance was posting something like "Glad he died" on social media I'm not sure that would indicate whether or not they could do their job properly. However I'd still consider that individual to be slightly unhinged for posting something like that. Personally I think social media is almost entirely opinion policing garbage and engaging with it 'unironically' is a low IQ indicator but whatever.
  - zahlman 1y ago
    > I mean, if a surgeon for instance was posting something like "Glad he died" on social media I'm not sure that would indicate whether or not they could do their job properly. It raises the suspicion that the surgeon might fail, consciously or unconsciously, to work at full capacity for a patient who happens to resemble the victim in some way.
frugalmail 1y ago
Harm in the physical sense, agreed. But "harm" newly defined 2013-2025 mutated into "speech I don't like" by the government. "Offend" is subjective, and US Citizens should not have punitive governmental consequences as a result. But private organizations, should be able to make their own decisions on all the above.
- immibis 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - zahlman 1y ago
    This is plain sophistry. When an order to harm is given and followed, the harm was caused proximately by the person following the order; and ultimately by the system in which the speech was to be taken as an order, and was followed. It was not caused by the speech itself. Where American law makes an exception for "incitement to imminent lawless action", this is a recognition that something more than mere "speech" is going on.
    - immibis 1y ago
      You're saying you don't believe giving orders is a form of speech. Can you justify that in more detail?
      - zahlman 1y ago
        No, I am not saying that. I am saying that when an order is given, it has other properties, aside from "being a form of speech", and those are the properties that make it bad to give an order to do a harmful thing. The simple fact that it is uttered, is not what's problematic about the order. It is therefore not valid to say that "you believe speech can harm people", any more than "you believe breathing can harm people" (since breathing is a prerequisite to being alive, which is a prerequisite to giving an order).
        1y ago

zahlman 1y ago

> consequences for saying things that harm or offend. Appropriate consequences. Death is never an appropriate consequence for this. Loss of employment is only appropriate where the speech demonstrates an inability to do the job properly.

zingababba 1y ago
I mean, if a surgeon for instance was posting something like "Glad he died" on social media I'm not sure that would indicate whether or not they could do their job properly. However I'd still consider that individual to be slightly unhinged for posting something like that. Personally I think social media is almost entirely opinion policing garbage and engaging with it 'unironically' is a low IQ indicator but whatever.
- zahlman 1y ago
  > I mean, if a surgeon for instance was posting something like "Glad he died" on social media I'm not sure that would indicate whether or not they could do their job properly. It raises the suspicion that the surgeon might fail, consciously or unconsciously, to work at full capacity for a patient who happens to resemble the victim in some way.

frugalmail 1y ago

Harm in the physical sense, agreed. But "harm" newly defined 2013-2025 mutated into "speech I don't like" by the government. "Offend" is subjective, and US Citizens should not have punitive governmental consequences as a result. But private organizations, should be able to make their own decisions on all the above.

immibis 1y ago
[flagged]
- zahlman 1y ago
  This is plain sophistry. When an order to harm is given and followed, the harm was caused proximately by the person following the order; and ultimately by the system in which the speech was to be taken as an order, and was followed. It was not caused by the speech itself. Where American law makes an exception for "incitement to imminent lawless action", this is a recognition that something more than mere "speech" is going on.
  - immibis 1y ago
    You're saying you don't believe giving orders is a form of speech. Can you justify that in more detail?
    - zahlman 1y ago
      No, I am not saying that. I am saying that when an order is given, it has other properties, aside from "being a form of speech", and those are the properties that make it bad to give an order to do a harmful thing. The simple fact that it is uttered, is not what's problematic about the order. It is therefore not valid to say that "you believe speech can harm people", any more than "you believe breathing can harm people" (since breathing is a prerequisite to being alive, which is a prerequisite to giving an order).
      - 1y ago