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.
In a way… I admit that ALL types of free speech when used can have SOME consequences.
The issue I have with your original statement is that you put all consequences in the same basket… With that logic you can say that freedom to vote does not mean freedom from consequences, therefore you can’t complain that I try to indimidate anyone if front of the booth
The issue I have with your argument is you have backtracked on the fact that consequences exist and I never mentioned who would be enforcing said consequences or what they would be.
You assumed what I meant, ran with it and now are complaining because you had to shift your position where the original statement I made still holds.
I have not backtracked on anything… My very first comment explicitly says that “It protects you against SOME consequences (then I proceed to list some as an example)”, which obviously implies that some others aren’t protected by it… I also never mentionned who would be enforcing it…
I didn’t care which consequences you thought about, and still don’t. It’s not what my comments are about.
My issue with your comment is you saying that freedom of speech doesn’t protect hate speech because it doesn’t give you freedom from ALL consequences. But freedom of speech gives the same protection to hate speech as any other form of speech.
I would have the same to say if that comment was :
"
-Freedom of speech includes talking about minorities oppression
-Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of consequences you woke bastard
"
Or any other topic.
I think I would agree with you on a lot of ideas, but using fallacious arguments is never helpfull.
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.
You were wrong, and he thoroughly showed you how you were wrong.
By your logic being black has consequences.
It does. Or haven’t you talked to someone with that skin tone.
Right, when you choose to be black, people like you give it consequences. Your logic is flawless.
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.
In a way… I admit that ALL types of free speech when used can have SOME consequences.
The issue I have with your original statement is that you put all consequences in the same basket… With that logic you can say that freedom to vote does not mean freedom from consequences, therefore you can’t complain that I try to indimidate anyone if front of the booth
The issue I have with your argument is you have backtracked on the fact that consequences exist and I never mentioned who would be enforcing said consequences or what they would be.
You assumed what I meant, ran with it and now are complaining because you had to shift your position where the original statement I made still holds.
I said CONSEQUENCES, not what ones.
I have not backtracked on anything… My very first comment explicitly says that “It protects you against SOME consequences (then I proceed to list some as an example)”, which obviously implies that some others aren’t protected by it… I also never mentionned who would be enforcing it…
I didn’t care which consequences you thought about, and still don’t. It’s not what my comments are about. My issue with your comment is you saying that freedom of speech doesn’t protect hate speech because it doesn’t give you freedom from ALL consequences. But freedom of speech gives the same protection to hate speech as any other form of speech.
I would have the same to say if that comment was : " -Freedom of speech includes talking about minorities oppression -Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of consequences you woke bastard " Or any other topic.
I think I would agree with you on a lot of ideas, but using fallacious arguments is never helpfull.
I say you aren’t free from consequences and you assume alot.
Just stop.
You’ve conceded my point because you are trying to argue semantics.
There are consequences associated with the freedom of speech.
Everything you’ve said doesn’t contradict it but supports the basic argument I made.
You really seem miffed due to the fact that I can just say with accuracy that you know there are consequences related to free speech.