>The entire point of why freedom of speech was created is to manage consequences from speech.
From government. From the men with the guns and the monopoly on violence.
"Consequences from speech" just means you live in a society where people are as free to disagree with you as you are with them, and aren't obligated to associate with you or give you a platform. Go to a black church or a synagogue and start talking like you're in a /pol/ thread - that's consequences.
Freedom of speech implies freedom from speech just as freedom of religion implies freedom from religion.
It's not a difficult concept. I don't know why so many people seem to have a difficult time with it.
Ironic that right wing controlled or aligned megacorps are energetically applying the same deplatforming and "consequences" to the progressive left and yet those on the progressive left are still defending such a clearly defective principle. One must respect the strength of their convictions but it sure looks like celebrating being hoist by your own petard to bystanders.
Freedom of speech laws binding governments were always a subset of the liberal ideal of freedom of speech. It's not a difficult concept. I don't know why so many people seem to have a difficult time with it.
>Ironic that right wing controlled or aligned megacorps are energetically applying the same deplatforming and "consequences" to the progressive left and yet those on the progressive left are still defending such a clearly defective principle.
Yes, and the left just... left for greener pastures.
Whereas if we'd done what "free speech absolutists" wanted and had the government seize control of all social media and regulate it so that moderation without government approval was illegal, there would be nowhere to go.
It isn't ironic, it's the result of having the courage of one's convictions, and recognizing the rights that protect the other side protect your own.
>Freedom of speech laws binding governments were always a subset of the liberal ideal of freedom of speech. It's not a difficult concept. I don't know why so many people seem to have a difficult time with it.
I'm confused. Clearly you intend this to be a witty refutation of some point I made but it agrees with me?
Maybe you should put less effort into trying to be clever and more effort into clarifying your point?
"Free speech has consequences" almost never refers to those consequences being imposed by the government of the day. It's generally used when (to pull an example out of the air) some woman cycling around might come across the Trump and Trumpets out and about in their convoy. Said woman might clasp one bicep while vigorously pumping that arm up and down in the air, with one single finger extended towards the top.
Sadly, that woman's employer might be more delusional than herself, support the pedophile rapist, and decide to terminate her employment. Now those are indeed consequences of her exercising her right to free speech, at least in a symbolic form, but it wasn't the pedophile-in-power imposing them, it was the toadying employer.
Sounds better if you say "Free speech may have consequences." As in the classic example, you're not free to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater (unless there really is one I suppose). And "free speech" only addresses the government's responsibility not to restrict speech. Any citizen or business has no legal requirement to allow free speech. Right-wingers are using the term to claim that their views are discriminated against, but no publisher is legally required to publish anything that anybody submits. There's always some sort of discrimination that needs to be involved.
>The entire point of why freedom of speech was created is to manage consequences from speech.
From government. From the men with the guns and the monopoly on violence.
"Consequences from speech" just means you live in a society where people are as free to disagree with you as you are with them, and aren't obligated to associate with you or give you a platform. Go to a black church or a synagogue and start talking like you're in a /pol/ thread - that's consequences.
Freedom of speech implies freedom from speech just as freedom of religion implies freedom from religion.
It's not a difficult concept. I don't know why so many people seem to have a difficult time with it.
Ironic that right wing controlled or aligned megacorps are energetically applying the same deplatforming and "consequences" to the progressive left and yet those on the progressive left are still defending such a clearly defective principle. One must respect the strength of their convictions but it sure looks like celebrating being hoist by your own petard to bystanders.
Freedom of speech laws binding governments were always a subset of the liberal ideal of freedom of speech. It's not a difficult concept. I don't know why so many people seem to have a difficult time with it.
>Ironic that right wing controlled or aligned megacorps are energetically applying the same deplatforming and "consequences" to the progressive left and yet those on the progressive left are still defending such a clearly defective principle.
Yes, and the left just... left for greener pastures.
Whereas if we'd done what "free speech absolutists" wanted and had the government seize control of all social media and regulate it so that moderation without government approval was illegal, there would be nowhere to go.
It isn't ironic, it's the result of having the courage of one's convictions, and recognizing the rights that protect the other side protect your own.
>Freedom of speech laws binding governments were always a subset of the liberal ideal of freedom of speech. It's not a difficult concept. I don't know why so many people seem to have a difficult time with it.
I'm confused. Clearly you intend this to be a witty refutation of some point I made but it agrees with me?
Maybe you should put less effort into trying to be clever and more effort into clarifying your point?
"Free speech has consequences" almost never refers to those consequences being imposed by the government of the day. It's generally used when (to pull an example out of the air) some woman cycling around might come across the Trump and Trumpets out and about in their convoy. Said woman might clasp one bicep while vigorously pumping that arm up and down in the air, with one single finger extended towards the top.
Sadly, that woman's employer might be more delusional than herself, support the pedophile rapist, and decide to terminate her employment. Now those are indeed consequences of her exercising her right to free speech, at least in a symbolic form, but it wasn't the pedophile-in-power imposing them, it was the toadying employer.
Sounds better if you say "Free speech may have consequences." As in the classic example, you're not free to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater (unless there really is one I suppose). And "free speech" only addresses the government's responsibility not to restrict speech. Any citizen or business has no legal requirement to allow free speech. Right-wingers are using the term to claim that their views are discriminated against, but no publisher is legally required to publish anything that anybody submits. There's always some sort of discrimination that needs to be involved.