• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -331 year ago

    Freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequences.

    Of course it is. What on earth could “free speech” possibly mean if not “you won’t be punished for what you say”?

    What do you think free speech is, other than a commitment to refrain from punishing people for speaking?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -131 year ago

        Only if you definite it to be limited to there. Free speech or the lack thereof is a condition of existence for a group of people.

        If you consider the US constitution, the rule government must adhere to is to refrain from interfering with free speech.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          91 year ago

          Homie, I’m Canadian, it’s beyond the constitution of the US. We don’t have unlimited free speech because it fucking leads to genocide and violence. I will fight to the grave to ensure that tolerance only extends to the tolerant. This is what generations fought a nearly world ending world war over. It’s worth fighting over, you don’t have to agree with me.

        • @CurlyMoustache
          link
          41 year ago

          Only if you definite it to be limited to there. Free speech or the lack thereof is a condition of existence for a group of people.

          Free speech is just that the government shouldn’t be able to punish you for what you say. Nothing else.

          What you describe is governed by the social contract. Noone should be forced to listen to what other people say, and people can freely decide to distance themselves if someone says something they don’t agree with.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Also there can be social consequences from what you say, free speech does not protect you from that, despite some people thinking that it does or that it should.

    • nfh
      link
      English
      14
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You’ve conflated punishment and consequences. You have the freedom to hold some morally repugnant view like white nationalism, and your freedom of speech protects your right to express those views. But your family can hear those expressions, and cut you out of their lives, publicly condemn those views, or you for holding them, without affecting your freedom of speech. A company can refuse to allow you to use their platform to spread those views without affecting your freedom of speech.

      What can’t happen is a politician or government official use their powers to suppress your speech, arrest you, unless your speech act harms people, like shouting fire in a crowded theater. People disagree about exactly what those exceptions should be, but except for a few small but loud conservative groups trying to censor things like LGBTQ content, this basic premise is pretty uncontroversial, at least in the US.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -91 year ago

        Negative consequences deliberately chosen to discourage others from speaking up is called punishment.

        • nfh
          link
          41 year ago

          I don’t agree that’s true in general, and it’s also not relevant to free speech

    • peopleproblems
      link
      121 year ago

      The government punishing people. I am not the government. I can point out that you are a fool to think you are otherwise immune from the consequences of what you say.

    • ZephrC
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      What in the world ever made you think that was a reasonable thing to say? Do you really believe that its your right to not only say what you want, but also never have anyone have a negative opinion of it? That is completely insane. Like actually I’m worried about your mental health. Seek help.