"Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences"

[Crusader13]

This has become the fail-safe credo for those on the side of censorship and thought-policing, and it's every bit as putrid and immoral as the regimes that coined it.

The question isn't whether an organization or government can legally punish you for wrong-speak, it's whether doing such a thing is acceptable, progressive, or moral. The short answer is no.

You cannot claim to be a supporter of freedom and equality while simultaneously calling for opposing speech to be censored or controlled, even if you have the legal right to do so. Free speech is important for a reason. It's not because of its inclusion on a particular historic document. It's because it represents everything right with the West, and everything wrong with oppressive regimes that do not allow it.

While an organization can legally fire you for your speech, this form of quasi-tyrannical, thought-policing strategy should not be encouraged or celebrated. It's the anathema of tolerance or progress. Anything you would not support your government in doing, neither should you support a private business to do. An organization willing to sanction someone for the incorrect use of words publicly declares that the strategies and laws of serial human right violators, ala North Korea or Nazi Germany, are credible. They're not. Free speech goes beyond the law with an equally (perhaps even more) important civic purpose that needs to be protected.

Only those who realize this can truly respect what it means to live in a free society, and do their part to maintain this luxury for the next generation to enjoy. Those that see free speech as a legal inconvenience that needs to be put up with, while squashing it at every opportunity afforded to them, clearly do not value it, and should not be encouraged or applauded for their dangerous view of it.

 

[snakestretcher]

This has become the fail-safe credo for those on the side of censorship and thought-policing, and it's every bit as putrid and immoral as the regimes that coined it.

The question isn't whether an organization or government can legally punish you for wrong-speak, it's whether doing such a thing is acceptable, progressive, or moral. The short answer is no.

You cannot claim to be a supporter of freedom and equality while simultaneously calling for opposing speech to be censored or controlled, even if you have the legal right to do so. Free speech is important for a reason. It's not because of its inclusion on a particular historic document. It's because it represents everything right with the West, and everything wrong with oppressive regimes that do not allow it.

While an organization can legally fire you for your speech, this form of quasi-tyrannical, thought-policing strategy should not be encouraged or celebrated. It's the anathema of tolerance or progress. Anything you would not support your government in doing, neither should you support a private business to do. An organization willing to sanction someone for the incorrect use of words publicly declares that the strategies and laws of serial human right violators, ala North Korea or Nazi Germany, are credible. They're not. Free speech goes beyond the law with an equally (perhaps even more) important civic purpose that needs to be protected.

Only those who realize this can truly respect what it means to live in a free society, and do their part to maintain this luxury for the next generation to enjoy. Those that see free speech as a legal inconvenience that needs to be put up with, while squashing it at every opportunity afforded to them, clearly do not value it, and should not be encouraged or applauded for their dangerous view of it.

There are times when 'free speech' can be dangerous; for example inciting others to violence. So, yes, there are consequences, and frequently lethal ones. Should we ignore them and accept those consequences as 'unintended'; would that be a responsible thing to do?
Would you be happy for ISIS supporters to incite others to murder?

 

[Felis Leo]

There are times when 'free speech' can be dangerous; for example inciting others to violence. So, yes, there are consequences, and frequently lethal ones. Should we ignore them and accept those consequences as 'unintended'; would that be a responsible thing to do?
Would you be happy for ISIS supporters to incite others to murder?

Ordering someone or encouraging someone to commit crimes has not now nor has it ever been protected speech. Nor to my knowledge has any advocate for free speech ever defended incitement to violence as being protected under free speech. Free speech is simply the state or its agents being unable to prosecute people for thoughts, opinions and relaying of factual information.

 

[TheGoverness]

There are times when 'free speech' can be dangerous; for example inciting others to violence. So, yes, there are consequences, and frequently lethal ones. Should we ignore them and accept those consequences as 'unintended'; would that be a responsible thing to do?
Would you be happy for ISIS supporters to incite others to murder?

That's not free speech, though.

 

[snakestretcher]

That's not free speech, though.

I'm not sure I follow you. The OP clearly feels any censorship is an impedance. Frankly if some Islamist nutter is attempting to recruit other nutters to kill innocent victims, then not only his freedom of speech should be curtailed, but his freedom generally.

 

[TheGoverness]

I'm not sure I follow you. The OP clearly feels any censorship is an impedance. Frankly if some Islamist nutter is attempting to recruit other nutters to kill innocent victims, then not only his freedom of speech should be curtailed, but his freedom generally.

That's not freedom of speech. That's incitement to violence. There are already certain provisions on what is considered protected speech. Inciting violence is not one of them.

 

[Crusader13]

I'm not sure I follow you. The OP clearly feels any censorship is an impedance.

No, I feel that any censorship of free speech is an impedance. Calls to violence has not nor has ever been free speech.

 

[snakestretcher]

No, I feel that any censorship of free speech is an impedance. Calls to violence has not nor has ever been free speech.

What? Sorry but you either have fee speech (no censorship), or you don't. If some lunatic Imam calls for violent Jihad against 'infidels' isn't he exercising his right to freedom of expression? Likewise the crazies of the Westboro Baptist 'church'.

 

[Deuce]

This has become the fail-safe credo for those on the side of censorship and thought-policing, and it's every bit as putrid and immoral as the regimes that coined it.

The question isn't whether an organization or government can legally punish you for wrong-speak, it's whether doing such a thing is acceptable, progressive, or moral. The short answer is no.

You cannot claim to be a supporter of freedom and equality while simultaneously calling for opposing speech to be censored or controlled, even if you have the legal right to do so. Free speech is important for a reason. It's not because of its inclusion on a particular historic document. It's because it represents everything right with the West, and everything wrong with oppressive regimes that do not allow it.

While an organization can legally fire you for your speech, this form of quasi-tyrannical, thought-policing strategy should not be encouraged or celebrated. It's the anathema of tolerance or progress. Anything you would not support your government in doing, neither should you support a private business to do. An organization willing to sanction someone for the incorrect use of words publicly declares that the strategies and laws of serial human right violators, ala North Korea or Nazi Germany, are credible. They're not. Free speech goes beyond the law with an equally (perhaps even more) important civic purpose that needs to be protected.

Only those who realize this can truly respect what it means to live in a free society, and do their part to maintain this luxury for the next generation to enjoy. Those that see free speech as a legal inconvenience that needs to be put up with, while squashing it at every opportunity afforded to them, clearly do not value it, and should not be encouraged or applauded for their dangerous view of it.

If your speech harms the bottom line of your employer, they're gonna fire you.

I am allowed to boycott a business that I find abhorrent. That's my freedom. Are you demanding I not act on it?

 

[apdst]

There are times when 'free speech' can be dangerous; for example inciting others to violence. So, yes, there are consequences, and frequently lethal ones. Should we ignore them and accept those consequences as 'unintended'; would that be a responsible thing to do?
Would you be happy for ISIS supporters to incite others to murder?

Inciting violence isn't protected speech.

 

[OrphanSlug]

This has become the fail-safe credo for those on the side of censorship and thought-policing, and it's every bit as putrid and immoral as the regimes that coined it.

The question isn't whether an organization or government can legally punish you for wrong-speak, it's whether doing such a thing is acceptable, progressive, or moral. The short answer is no.

You cannot claim to be a supporter of freedom and equality while simultaneously calling for opposing speech to be censored or controlled, even if you have the legal right to do so. Free speech is important for a reason. It's not because of its inclusion on a particular historic document. It's because it represents everything right with the West, and everything wrong with oppressive regimes that do not allow it.

While an organization can legally fire you for your speech, this form of quasi-tyrannical, thought-policing strategy should not be encouraged or celebrated. It's the anathema of tolerance or progress. Anything you would not support your government in doing, neither should you support a private business to do. An organization willing to sanction someone for the incorrect use of words publicly declares that the strategies and laws of serial human right violators, ala North Korea or Nazi Germany, are credible. They're not. Free speech goes beyond the law with an equally (perhaps even more) important civic purpose that needs to be protected.

Only those who realize this can truly respect what it means to live in a free society, and do their part to maintain this luxury for the next generation to enjoy. Those that see free speech as a legal inconvenience that needs to be put up with, while squashing it at every opportunity afforded to them, clearly do not value it, and should not be encouraged or applauded for their dangerous view of it.

This is a bit disjointed.

"Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences" is about responsibility. All of our rights come with an inherent responsibility of having them, the main point being having rights does not mean escape from what is done with them. The intention was by either exercising these rights or not, the onus is on the individual to not trample over someone else's rights.

In this case with free speech, the intention being not to harm someone else's rights with what is exercised by you. That concept is neither censorship or restriction, but rather equal application.

 

[HonestJoe]

No, I feel that any censorship of free speech is an impedance. Calls to violence has not nor has ever been free speech.

Isn’t that a bit of a semantic distinction? You could say everything is “free speech” but there are some restrictions within that or you can say only permitted speech is “free speech” and the restricted speech is a separate category. The practical outcome is exactly the same.

Either way, the difficulty is how you determine where the line is drawn.

 

[Crusader13]

Isn’t that a bit of a semantic distinction? You could say everything is “free speech” but there are some restrictions within that or you can say only permitted speech is “free speech” and the restricted speech is a separate category. The practical outcome is exactly the same.

Either way, the difficulty is how you determine where the line is drawn.

It's already been drawn. Anything that directly incites or instructs violence is where the line starts.

 

[nekrodev]

It's already been drawn. Anything that directly incites or instructs violence is where the line starts.

how do you feel about these?

FACT CHECK: Did Donald Trump Encourage Violence at His Rallies?

how do you feel about the fact that, in addition to this, Trump supporters have literally killed people, and have attempted to kill or injure many more?

Charlottesville Jury Convicts 'Unite The Right' Protester Who Killed Woman : NPR

Pipe bomb suspect writes to judge that the 16 devices he mailed were only meant for intimidation - CNN

 

[nekrodev]

Also, how do you feel about these?

CNN's Jim Acosta has White House pass revoked after Trump confrontation | US news | The Guardian

White House threatens to revoke more press passes - CNN

Trump threatens NBC's broadcast licenses after critical stories - Los Angeles Times

I could go on and on, but it seems like conservatives only care about "freedom of speech" when it's their side on the receiving end of criticism or boycott or whatever.

 

[Jack Hays]

What? Sorry but you either have fee speech (no censorship), or you don't. If some lunatic Imam calls for violent Jihad against 'infidels' isn't he exercising his right to freedom of expression? Likewise the crazies of the Westboro Baptist 'church'.

No. He's not.

 

[SoCal]

This has become the fail-safe credo for those on the side of censorship and thought-policing, and it's every bit as putrid and immoral as the regimes that coined it.

The question isn't whether an organization or government can legally punish you for wrong-speak, it's whether doing such a thing is acceptable, progressive, or moral. The short answer is no.

You cannot claim to be a supporter of freedom and equality while simultaneously calling for opposing speech to be censored or controlled, even if you have the legal right to do so. Free speech is important for a reason. It's not because of its inclusion on a particular historic document. It's because it represents everything right with the West, and everything wrong with oppressive regimes that do not allow it.

While an organization can legally fire you for your speech, this form of quasi-tyrannical, thought-policing strategy should not be encouraged or celebrated. It's the anathema of tolerance or progress. Anything you would not support your government in doing, neither should you support a private business to do. An organization willing to sanction someone for the incorrect use of words publicly declares that the strategies and laws of serial human right violators, ala North Korea or Nazi Germany, are credible. They're not. Free speech goes beyond the law with an equally (perhaps even more) important civic purpose that needs to be protected.

Only those who realize this can truly respect what it means to live in a free society, and do their part to maintain this luxury for the next generation to enjoy. Those that see free speech as a legal inconvenience that needs to be put up with, while squashing it at every opportunity afforded to them, clearly do not value it, and should not be encouraged or applauded for their dangerous view of it.

______s Are Served in the Rear

 

[Crusader13]

how do you feel about these?

FACT CHECK: Did Donald Trump Encourage Violence at His Rallies?

how do you feel about the fact that, in addition to this, Trump supporters have literally killed people, and have attempted to kill or injure many more?

Charlottesville Jury Convicts 'Unite The Right' Protester Who Killed Woman : NPR

Pipe bomb suspect writes to judge that the 16 devices he mailed were only meant for intimidation - CNN

Guilt by association is not a thing. Trump is not responsible for the actions of anyone who supports him, just like The Beatles are not responsible for anyone who's ever listened to their music and happened to do something violent.

I don't know the context of any of those quotes, so it's not worth me commenting. Many of them seem to be in response to violent actions already taken against him or others, even though that doesn't necessarily mean he is excused. I don't support any of those comments and looking at them neutrally believe he shouldn't be allowed to say them.

 

[nekrodev]

The point is, people on the right, including our President, like to pretend that because of some college students chasing out Milo Yiannopoulos, or banning some people on Twitter, or whatever is infringing on your freedom of speech, when people on the right are constantly violating the very spirit of freedom of speech, and threatening violence or COMMITTING violence on those they disagree with.

"Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" is true, in every sense. You have a right to be as ****ty of a person as you want to be. And everyone else has a right to call you out, or to ignore you, or within their own property, to prohibit you from participating. Freedom of speech, as protected under the 1st Amendment only applies to the government. It'd be nice if Twitter didn't feel that they needed to ban people for abusing their platform, and it'd be nice if some of the left-wing snowflakes could let someone that disagrees with them speak on campus without causing a scene, but those are not violations upon your rights.

Meanwhile, the President of our country, a Republican, praised by conservatives and conservative media across the country, literally threatens violence upon and threatens to revoke the rights of American citizens, simply for not believing everything he says without question, and for daring to push back against such abuse of power.

 

[HonestJoe]

It's already been drawn. Anything that directly incites or instructs violence is where the line starts.

It’s that simple, there should be literally no other limitations or consequences of “free speech”?

So publishing personal financial or medical data, releasing official secrets, reporting ongoing court cases, libel/slander, broadcasting explicit material, playing loud music at 3am… no violence so all that speech should be entirely free and unrestricted in any way?

 

[TheParser]

Since the inauguration of the Honorable Donald J. Trump, there is another reason for censorship that has been gaining ground.


*****

FACEBOOK just recently made it official: No one may discuss "white nationalism" or "white separation."

To the best of my knowledge, those two topics do NOT necessarily involve any call to violence.

They DO, however, hurt the feelings of some groups and/or show some groups in a bad light.

*****

I believe that many people support FACEBOOK's new policy.

 

[snakestretcher]

Since the inauguration of the Honorable Donald J. Trump, there is another reason for censorship that has been gaining ground.


*****

FACEBOOK just recently made it official: No one may discuss "white nationalism" or "white separation."

To the best of my knowledge, those two topics do NOT necessarily involve any call to violence.

They DO, however, hurt the feelings of some groups and/or show some groups in a bad light.

*****

I believe that many people support FACEBOOK's new policy.

Most decent and respectful people do. The mouth breathers are too ignorant to understand what decency is.
Here are some fine, upstanding and well-educated Americans:
YouTube

 

[Crusader13]

The point is, people on the right, including our President, like to pretend that because of some college students chasing out Milo Yiannopoulos, or banning some people on Twitter, or whatever is infringing on your freedom of speech, when people on the right are constantly violating the very spirit of freedom of speech, and threatening violence or COMMITTING violence on those they disagree with.

So because some people are using their speech to incite violence, other people should have their perfectly acceptable speech censored and shut down? I'm not following. If the Left has a problem with Milo or Alex Jones then go after him, don't lump-sum everyone in the same category as him and shut down all speech. That's now how it works.

"Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" is true, in every sense. You have a right to be as ****ty of a person as you want to be. And everyone else has a right to call you out, or to ignore you, or within their own property, to prohibit you from participating.

True, but turning to the guy next to you and preaching about how tolerant and diversely inclusive you are is the hallmark of pathological liars and braindead citizen fodder. You do have a right to censor or attempt to shut down speech, but you normalize and glorify this behaviour at your own peril and the peril of the generations after you.

It'd be nice if Twitter didn't feel that they needed to ban people for abusing their platform, and it'd be nice if some of the left-wing snowflakes could let someone that disagrees with them speak on campus without causing a scene, but those are not violations upon your rights.

No, but they're violations upon Western values and progress. The fact that these organizations can not only get away with this oppressive tactic, but actually be applauded and encouraged for it is sickening. Censoring opinions the way Facebook and YouTube do is way worse than what right-wingers often get chastised for, such as expressing a dislike for homosexuals. We are literally in a culture where disagreeing with the Left has become a bigger crime than disagreeing with the founding fathers and the values that define our way of live.

Meanwhile, the President of our country, a Republican, praised by conservatives and conservative media across the country, literally threatens violence upon and threatens to revoke the rights of American citizens, simply for not believing everything he says without question, and for daring to push back against such abuse of power.

Well I'm happy to report that despite this Hitlerism from the President, America is still free and prosperous, which would likely not be the case with the Clinton warlords and their Saudi-filled pockets in charge.

 

[Glitch]

This has become the fail-safe credo for those on the side of censorship and thought-policing, and it's every bit as putrid and immoral as the regimes that coined it.

The question isn't whether an organization or government can legally punish you for wrong-speak, it's whether doing such a thing is acceptable, progressive, or moral. The short answer is no.

You cannot claim to be a supporter of freedom and equality while simultaneously calling for opposing speech to be censored or controlled, even if you have the legal right to do so. Free speech is important for a reason. It's not because of its inclusion on a particular historic document. It's because it represents everything right with the West, and everything wrong with oppressive regimes that do not allow it.

While an organization can legally fire you for your speech, this form of quasi-tyrannical, thought-policing strategy should not be encouraged or celebrated. It's the anathema of tolerance or progress. Anything you would not support your government in doing, neither should you support a private business to do. An organization willing to sanction someone for the incorrect use of words publicly declares that the strategies and laws of serial human right violators, ala North Korea or Nazi Germany, are credible. They're not. Free speech goes beyond the law with an equally (perhaps even more) important civic purpose that needs to be protected.

Only those who realize this can truly respect what it means to live in a free society, and do their part to maintain this luxury for the next generation to enjoy. Those that see free speech as a legal inconvenience that needs to be put up with, while squashing it at every opportunity afforded to them, clearly do not value it, and should not be encouraged or applauded for their dangerous view of it.

Free speech does not mean freedom from the consequences. That is a true and factual statement. Speech can have consequences. For example, if you use your free speech to slander or libel someone you can face civil penalties. If you use your free speech to incite violence or call for an armed insurrection, then you can face criminal penalties. These are just some of the consequences of free speech. No freedom is absolute. If you attempt to use any of your freedoms to cause harm, then it is most likely already illegal.

The First Amendment exists to protect speech with which we disagree. If we agreed with what was said, then there would be no need to protect it. Which means that there is no such thing as "hate speech." However, you failed to grasp that the First Amendment exists to protect our rights only from government, not the private sector. The private sector can blacklist you, or prevent you from working, like they did in Hollywood during from 1947 to 1951. Or they can ban you from using their services, like Twitter and Facebook do today. While it may violate your right to free speech since they are not government you have no legal recourse.

If a company wants to fire you because they don't like your politics, they can. While on the job my advise is to stay professional and never refer to the topics of sex, politics, or religion.

Free speech is only protected against government, not against the private sector. The same thing is true for the rest of the Bill of Rights. It only applies to the government, not the private sector. It is perfectly constitutional and legal for a private business to search your luggage at an airport, for example. But for the government to search your luggage at an airport without probable cause that you committed a crime would be violating your Fourth Amendment rights. There is a clear distinction between the two.

 

[Glitch]

Since the inauguration of the Honorable Donald J. Trump, there is another reason for censorship that has been gaining ground.


*****

FACEBOOK just recently made it official: No one may discuss "white nationalism" or "white separation."

To the best of my knowledge, those two topics do NOT necessarily involve any call to violence.

They DO, however, hurt the feelings of some groups and/or show some groups in a bad light.

*****

I believe that many people support FACEBOOK's new policy.

That support for Facebook is only coming from the anti-American left. Conservatives have been dumping Facebook, Twitter, and Google like a rock, since those organizations have proved themselves to be leftist anti-Americans.