That doesn’t make sense. If someone at a Nazi rally shouted “actually Jews are alright” and got arrested for it, would you say that’s compatible with free speech? Because while they might have experienced consequences, “free speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences”, so since they were able to say what they intended to they had free speech?
Nowhere in any writings about free speech does it mention that you are free from consequences.
Edit: american free spech has limits, it really only protects you when criticizing the government. As with most governments that enshrined free speech.
It does mean freedom from a lot of consequences though, like getting harassed, beaten or incarcerated, or anything else beeing covered by law. In that sense, it does cover hate speech, in all its forms, that doesn’t make op racist in any way…
But that is my exact point, the only thing op is saying is that hate speech (along other edge cases) is protected by free speech. Which is true and doesn’t mean op agrees with it.
It could be interpreted as “you can’t touch me, I am protected by free speech”, or “remember that some seemingly innocent laws also protect some very douchy behaviors”.
Which one YOU decide to interpret it is on you.
Either way, there is an interesting conversation to be had around the law, who is it there to protect, why, and what the limits should be.
But instead that comment decided to say that “it doesn’t force the rest to agree with you” and claim that it makes op a racist. Just an irrelevant “feel good” argument and an ad hominem attack to shut down a conversation on a more than ever important subject.
What the fuck do you think it means then? Because otherwise everyone, everywhere has the freedom to do everything, but for some of them you don’t have freedom from consequences…
If you paid attention when they were going over free speech (assuming you paid attention in a civics class), it always talks about how the GOVERNMENT can’t tell you not to say something critical of them.
If you were allowed to say things without any consequences; why are there laws against libel, slander, hate speech, false claims, and inciting violence? To name a few.
Your concept of free speech does not jive with reality.
You are free to walk down the streets of Harlem with an “I hate niggers” sign. The law still protects you from assault or other actions that others may take against you. You may get fired from your job for such an action, but even then you would still have the right to pursue a wrongful dismissal case.
As for libel/slander. First of all, it’s a civil issue, and you won’t be jailed for it. Secondly, in the US it requires a significant burden of proof. A plaintiff must show it was more likely than not that:
there were actual damages.
the statements were false.
the person knew the statements were false.
the person intended the statements to be harmful.
There’s also anti-SLAPP laws which provide additional protection from entities attempting to use a lawsuit to stop speech.
Except you are free from some consequences, that’s exactly why there are laws in place, to delimit what you can do without retaliation, and what you cannot.
Yes, there are, some fairly harmless, some much more impactfull. Getting a dislike from a comment is a consequence, although very benign. Getting boycotted or banned from a platform is another consequence, which could be quite devastating.
It doesn’t mean fredom from consequences you racist bastard.
Nice, so you decided to use hate speech against him
No, it is an accusation. Hate speech would be calling him names based of ethnicity or some other quality they cannot change.
Way to show your lack of understanding.
Its kinda sad that people like you exist.
Technically you have no influence on being a bastard
And the meaning has also shifted away from your parents not being wed when you are born.
I know, I know
That doesn’t make sense. If someone at a Nazi rally shouted “actually Jews are alright” and got arrested for it, would you say that’s compatible with free speech? Because while they might have experienced consequences, “free speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences”, so since they were able to say what they intended to they had free speech?
Why does he get arrested for shouting “actually, jews are alright”?
I should have been more clear that I’m not talking about a nazi rally in any arbitrary context, but specifically one in nazi germany.
Where they specifically didn’t have free speech.
Indeed, since freely speaking had consequences.
Nowhere in any writings about free speech does it mention that you are free from consequences.
Edit: american free spech has limits, it really only protects you when criticizing the government. As with most governments that enshrined free speech.
Also thats a hell of a whataboutism.
“Free speech only when talking about the government” is very different from “free speech”.
Yeah, and people point to that when they talk about free speech and miss the point where they never said you are completely free of consequences.
Try again. Seriously, you sound like a high school student who clued in half way through the class.
Who are “they”?
It does mean freedom from a lot of consequences though, like getting harassed, beaten or incarcerated, or anything else beeing covered by law. In that sense, it does cover hate speech, in all its forms, that doesn’t make op racist in any way…
You should really ask yourself what OP is saying to trigger this response.
But that is my exact point, the only thing op is saying is that hate speech (along other edge cases) is protected by free speech. Which is true and doesn’t mean op agrees with it.
It could be interpreted as “you can’t touch me, I am protected by free speech”, or “remember that some seemingly innocent laws also protect some very douchy behaviors”. Which one YOU decide to interpret it is on you.
Either way, there is an interesting conversation to be had around the law, who is it there to protect, why, and what the limits should be. But instead that comment decided to say that “it doesn’t force the rest to agree with you” and claim that it makes op a racist. Just an irrelevant “feel good” argument and an ad hominem attack to shut down a conversation on a more than ever important subject.
No it really doesn’t.
What the fuck do you think it means then? Because otherwise everyone, everywhere has the freedom to do everything, but for some of them you don’t have freedom from consequences…
You are never free from consequences.
If you paid attention when they were going over free speech (assuming you paid attention in a civics class), it always talks about how the GOVERNMENT can’t tell you not to say something critical of them.
If you were allowed to say things without any consequences; why are there laws against libel, slander, hate speech, false claims, and inciting violence? To name a few.
Your concept of free speech does not jive with reality.
You are free to walk down the streets of Harlem with an “I hate niggers” sign. The law still protects you from assault or other actions that others may take against you. You may get fired from your job for such an action, but even then you would still have the right to pursue a wrongful dismissal case.
As for libel/slander. First of all, it’s a civil issue, and you won’t be jailed for it. Secondly, in the US it requires a significant burden of proof. A plaintiff must show it was more likely than not that:
There’s also anti-SLAPP laws which provide additional protection from entities attempting to use a lawsuit to stop speech.
So you’re saying there are consequences for using hate speech.
That you may have to get the justice system involved to support your rights. I suppose you can call that a consequence.
So consequences exist for free speech. Thank you for finally getting on board.
Except you are free from some consequences, that’s exactly why there are laws in place, to delimit what you can do without retaliation, and what you cannot.
So there are consequences with free speech?
Yes, there are, some fairly harmless, some much more impactfull. Getting a dislike from a comment is a consequence, although very benign. Getting boycotted or banned from a platform is another consequence, which could be quite devastating.
So you admit that certain types of speech when used have consequences even though free spech exists.
What makes OP a racist bastard?
Only people I see trying to make this point are ones trying to hand wave shitty behaviour.
Also I’m free to say it.
You’d be more accurate if you just called them a conspiracy theory wacko
I get what you are saying, and I agree that it is accurate.
Doesn’t quite have the same pop though.
free speech
you fish diddler