5 ms·

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ... Well put ... and does not absolve anyone of the consequences of their speec

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ... Well put ... and does not absolve anyone of the consequences of their speech. People keep forgetting that exercise of rights have consequences for which they may/must be held accountable for. Say what you like, but be aware that you are still accountable for how you obtained that content, or what happens as a result of what you say.

sillygoose 11y ago
> Say what you like, but be aware that you are still accountable for how you obtained that content, or what happens as a result of what you say. In other words, say what you like, but don't be surprised when they haul you off to a concentration camp for being a naughty little thought-criminal, huh? It's your fault for saying whatever you said! You should have been more careful!
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  There are consequences and there are government consequences. The latter is bad, the former falls under free speech. A person can say <controversial opinion> and in response others can choose to no longer associate with them, do business with them, etc. (There is an issue when the primary means of communication become privatized, but that is an area I've yet to work out.)
- ctdonath 11y ago
  No, that's punishing the speech itself - NOT addressing the consequences thereof. Do I really have to explain the concept? Saying that "I have it on clear authority that vacri & sillygoose are thieves; liars; adulterers; responsible for a toxic spill that poisoned kids; stole from the pension accounts; rigged elections; etc" is of itself not actionable, but if such libel can be adjudicated the cause of otherwise baseless abuse by society inflicted on vacri & sillygoose then yes I can be incarcerated as a danger to society. Apparently some people can't discern the difference between punishment of speech and punishment for consequences of speech. Obviously such people need be kept out of legislative office.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Honestly, I wouldn't be too upset if the ones who committed the abuse itself were the ones held responsible. The person who said that ctdonath is a predator has wronged you but the one who stabbed you because they thought you a predator is the criminal.
    - techdragon 11y ago
      The consequences come down on both, one is a homicide the other is a case of manslaughter, both should be judged by the law, and punished if that's the judgement.
      - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        Why should one be manslaughter? Especially when it would've been protected under current rules had they just said 'I think' before it.
        ctdonath 11y ago
        it would've been protected under current rules had they just said 'I think' before it. Monty Python addresses that issue quite well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7D8A7e4TEY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7D8A7e4TEY
  - sillygoose 11y ago
    > No, that's punishing the speech itself - NOT addressing the consequences thereof. You do realize that the kind of speech that needs to be protected is not the kind with negative consequences for innocent bystanders, don't you? It's not like I'm defending yelling "fire!" in a movie theater. The poster whom I responded to didn't seem aware of these distinctions, which is why I snarked at him. > Do I really have to explain the concept? No, you don't. > Apparently some people can't discern the difference between punishment of speech and punishment for consequences of speech. Obviously such people need be kept out of legislative office. But I guess it's alright to have liars, crooks and wannabe-tyrants in there?
- Torgo 11y ago
  This is an honest question: if someone uses their freedom of speech to vocally support overthrowing a democratically elected government and replace it with a fascist dictatorship, would the government watching that person closely be a violation of their free speech?
  - ctdonath 11y ago
    Watching, insofar as it does not get into 4th Amendment search-and-seizure territory, is reasonable. This is a variant of: you have the right to publicly say what you like, and I have the right to listen, document what you said, and say you're an idiot for saying it.
    - minot 11y ago
      > Watching, insofar as it does not get into 4th Amendment search-and-seizure territory, is reasonable. A problem is that the fourth amendment is itself under attack as well...
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    This gets into the area of chilling effects. I would say yes, assuming the government would never abuse such information. That is to say, no.
ecdavis 11y ago
To counter your opinion, I will quote to you from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: > Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. The US Bill of Rights is simply an acknowledgment of the inalienable right to free speech, is it not a definition. The role of the US Constitution is to define the powers of the US federal government. The absence of a protection from private attacks on free speech is not an endorsement thereof. It's simply the nature of the document. All too often I see the expression, "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences." In fact, that's precisely what it is. The freedom to say what you want without being punished for doing so, whether that punishment be execution, imprisonment, social exclusion or anything else. Society seems to be accepting some limitations to free speech (i.e. shouting fire in a crowded theater, personal political opinions having professional ramifications, etc.). If we've decided, as a society, that it is necessary to limit free speech then let's be honest about it. We should not present those limitations as some inevitable part of having free speech in the first place. Freedom of speech is freedom from consequences. That we have decided consequences are sometimes necessary is a testament to how much we value freedom of speech.
- verbin217 11y ago
  Yelling "fire" into a crowded theater is more than speech. Similar to when a person gets in another's face and screams at them it becomes more than speech. We can restrict modes of expression without restricting content.
  - ecdavis 11y ago
    > We can restrict modes of expression without restricting content. Absolutely we can, but we need to be careful in how we do so and we really should be limiting those restrictions to the smallest number possible. Niceties like "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" help us easily accept more restrictions on speech - in fact they make those restrictions seem like common sense! As a society, though, we should be ultra-vigilant when it comes to protecting our speech and only restrict it when we are absolutely sure it is necessary. I'm not just talking about legal restrictions here, either, cultural restrictions are just as important. We don't want to find ourselves in a situation where the "mode of expression" being restricted is, say, talking to friends in a bar.

sillygoose 11y ago

> Say what you like, but be aware that you are still accountable for how you obtained that content, or what happens as a result of what you say. In other words, say what you like, but don't be surprised when they haul you off to a concentration camp for being a naughty little thought-criminal, huh? It's your fault for saying whatever you said! You should have been more careful!

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
There are consequences and there are government consequences. The latter is bad, the former falls under free speech. A person can say <controversial opinion> and in response others can choose to no longer associate with them, do business with them, etc. (There is an issue when the primary means of communication become privatized, but that is an area I've yet to work out.)
ctdonath 11y ago
No, that's punishing the speech itself - NOT addressing the consequences thereof. Do I really have to explain the concept? Saying that "I have it on clear authority that vacri & sillygoose are thieves; liars; adulterers; responsible for a toxic spill that poisoned kids; stole from the pension accounts; rigged elections; etc" is of itself not actionable, but if such libel can be adjudicated the cause of otherwise baseless abuse by society inflicted on vacri & sillygoose then yes I can be incarcerated as a danger to society. Apparently some people can't discern the difference between punishment of speech and punishment for consequences of speech. Obviously such people need be kept out of legislative office.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Honestly, I wouldn't be too upset if the ones who committed the abuse itself were the ones held responsible. The person who said that ctdonath is a predator has wronged you but the one who stabbed you because they thought you a predator is the criminal.
  - techdragon 11y ago
    The consequences come down on both, one is a homicide the other is a case of manslaughter, both should be judged by the law, and punished if that's the judgement.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      Why should one be manslaughter? Especially when it would've been protected under current rules had they just said 'I think' before it.
      - ctdonath 11y ago
        it would've been protected under current rules had they just said 'I think' before it. Monty Python addresses that issue quite well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7D8A7e4TEY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7D8A7e4TEY
- sillygoose 11y ago
  > No, that's punishing the speech itself - NOT addressing the consequences thereof. You do realize that the kind of speech that needs to be protected is not the kind with negative consequences for innocent bystanders, don't you? It's not like I'm defending yelling "fire!" in a movie theater. The poster whom I responded to didn't seem aware of these distinctions, which is why I snarked at him. > Do I really have to explain the concept? No, you don't. > Apparently some people can't discern the difference between punishment of speech and punishment for consequences of speech. Obviously such people need be kept out of legislative office. But I guess it's alright to have liars, crooks and wannabe-tyrants in there?
Torgo 11y ago
This is an honest question: if someone uses their freedom of speech to vocally support overthrowing a democratically elected government and replace it with a fascist dictatorship, would the government watching that person closely be a violation of their free speech?
- ctdonath 11y ago
  Watching, insofar as it does not get into 4th Amendment search-and-seizure territory, is reasonable. This is a variant of: you have the right to publicly say what you like, and I have the right to listen, document what you said, and say you're an idiot for saying it.
  - minot 11y ago
    > Watching, insofar as it does not get into 4th Amendment search-and-seizure territory, is reasonable. A problem is that the fourth amendment is itself under attack as well...
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  This gets into the area of chilling effects. I would say yes, assuming the government would never abuse such information. That is to say, no.

ecdavis 11y ago

To counter your opinion, I will quote to you from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: > Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. The US Bill of Rights is simply an acknowledgment of the inalienable right to free speech, is it not a definition. The role of the US Constitution is to define the powers of the US federal government. The absence of a protection from private attacks on free speech is not an endorsement thereof. It's simply the nature of the document. All too often I see the expression, "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences." In fact, that's precisely what it is. The freedom to say what you want without being punished for doing so, whether that punishment be execution, imprisonment, social exclusion or anything else. Society seems to be accepting some limitations to free speech (i.e. shouting fire in a crowded theater, personal political opinions having professional ramifications, etc.). If we've decided, as a society, that it is necessary to limit free speech then let's be honest about it. We should not present those limitations as some inevitable part of having free speech in the first place. Freedom of speech is freedom from consequences. That we have decided consequences are sometimes necessary is a testament to how much we value freedom of speech.

verbin217 11y ago
Yelling "fire" into a crowded theater is more than speech. Similar to when a person gets in another's face and screams at them it becomes more than speech. We can restrict modes of expression without restricting content.
- ecdavis 11y ago
  > We can restrict modes of expression without restricting content. Absolutely we can, but we need to be careful in how we do so and we really should be limiting those restrictions to the smallest number possible. Niceties like "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" help us easily accept more restrictions on speech - in fact they make those restrictions seem like common sense! As a society, though, we should be ultra-vigilant when it comes to protecting our speech and only restrict it when we are absolutely sure it is necessary. I'm not just talking about legal restrictions here, either, cultural restrictions are just as important. We don't want to find ourselves in a situation where the "mode of expression" being restricted is, say, talking to friends in a bar.