> Ok I'll bite: how is "you are free say what you want but you may have to face a firing squad"
That's not the consequence here.
The consequence is “other private parties might choose not to relay your speech or continue association with you, exercising their own rights to free speech and association.”
Me not allowing you to use my resources to magnify the reach of your message isn't analogous to the state subjecting you to capital punishment.
> The whole POINT of 'free speech' is that there are no consequences.
No, the whole point is that the state doesn't have their thumb on the scale, allowing ideas to succeed or fail by their ability, or not, to attract support from private actors. Legislation in which the state intervenes to prevent private consequences through the exercise of free speech are not only on their face contrary to free speech, but sabotage the operation of the marketplace of ideas.
> "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences."
> I am free to say anything I like, but if I say the wrong thing, I get punished for it
Not quite. You did not quote a critical part -- being free from consequences from the government. And as governments, almost everywhere, give themselves a monopoly on the use of force "if I say the wrong thing I get punished for it" does not apply.
Thus whoever wants to punish you needs to petition the government for help and prove their case -- if I make false claims that you consider damaging you can ask the government to help and prove your case in a civil court (instead of, say, punching me in the snout to punish me directly). Just my 2c.
>I usually think of free speech in this context to mean freedom from state intervention. The state shouldn't be allowed to treat you differently from others because of what you say.
No, it was also meant against any kind of intervention. Also from the church for example. Or bigoted crowed. Or lynching.
Take a racist Southern town for example. Is this idea of free speech compatible with the town people giving a black guy a hard time if speaks freely (not hiring him, the ocassional threat, passive agreesive attitude towards him, etc), just because the state is not involved?
>To give you a counter example. If we accept that "having a right to it" means never "suffering consequences" then I'm never allowed to form an opinion of a person based on the things they say
Well, opinion is also free speech (well, thought and speech) itself. Not really talking about that when discussing actual consequences. Or even "I'm not going to buy this guy's book now that he said that".
> freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences
And that's where you're wrong. The federal government at least in principle guarantees no consequences from itself for merely communicating or publishing ideas.
> I simply think there is a difference between criticism (saying you disagree or even cursing someone) and punishment (withdrawing funding, getting somebody fired).
What an extremely weird take. Are you saying I don’t have the right to decide who to do business with based on what they say, or that that’s somehow inappropriate? Restraining the right of free association to protect free speech is an awful idea.
> And I also think that the whole point of free speech is to be free of societal consequences of it
You are wrong. Full stop.
Free speech is about the right to say what you want without the government punishing you for it. This also includes the freedom to express disapproval or opprobrium. The ability to express disapproval is fundamental to free speech, any attempt to curtail that is in fact an attempt to curtail free speech itself.
If you wish to speak without social consequences, speak anonymously. This is the exact reason why the Supreme Court has held that anonymous speech is a right, to speak controversial ideas without suffering social consequences.
Also, you’re criticizing me for considering not buying a future DLC. Under your own theory, aren’t you being anti free speech for criticizing me?
> whether they have government authority stamp or not,
If you can’t tell the difference between government action and individual people expressing an opinion, that seems like a problem specific to you and not this society.
> and I think the former Soviet regimes, which started in good faith of inclusive community, and ended up authoritarian, show exactly that problem
Ironic, given that you’re proposing authoritarian responses to protect free speech.
> There has always been a difference between freedom to say what you want and freedom from consequences.
No. Free speech is speech which is (at least largely) free of consequence. Not just free of legal consequences either, but social consequences as well (such as getting fired from your job for having certain political opinions). Free speech =/= first amendment.
> The famous adage “you can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”
Which was used as justification to punish anti-war protesters.
> Newspapers are liable for libel suits and other legal remedies if they publish false and damaging information.
Which is part of a set of well known, long-standing exceptions to the first amendment.
You do. But the idea of free speech has been twisted and warped to mean speech without social or economic consequences and that is where it goes wrong.
I doubt you believe that speech should be more criminalized than it already is. I think most of us agree that having an opinion, no matter how outrageous or evil, should not be a crime. We agree on exceptions to this for outright threats of violence.
The expectation that speech should be free-as-in-beer. That you are entitled to a platform. That you should be free of all consequence. This the problem.
Providing privacy and communications produces not subject to control of a central authority isn't a bad thing! But we also shouldn't just be mindless cogs in the free speech money machine.
>but I think it's wrong to say what you have is free speech, if you think that people who say the wrong things get what they deserve.
Then having laws prohibiting slander, libel, fraud, harassment and incitement to violence also means we don't have free speech, since that is the state saying "people who say the wrong things get what they deserve."
I think all but the most hard-core an anarchist free speech advocates would agree with those limits to speech. Even Benjamin Franklin had limits to what he was willing to publish, as recounted in a comment here[0].
Freedom of speech does not mean all platforms must be forced to host your speech, nor that all people must be forced to consider it. The line between social consequence and censorship only tends to be drawn between agreement and disagreement with the speech being rejected - it's social consequence when you agree with it, and censorship when you don't.
If that means we don't have free speech, then I guess we don't have free speech and, more to the point, have never had free speech.
>Because absolute free speech is allowing all that without consequence
Freedom of speech is absolutely not about freedom from consequences. Where and how did you ever get that idea?
Free speech means you can say anything you want, some very specific caveats aside, and you can't be prosecuted simply for saying them. But that doesn't mean you won't have to answer for what happens as a consequence.
As an example: You absolutely can go and make wild claims about your product to try and sell it, nobody can stop you from doing that. You absolutely can make bogus claims about someone, nobody can stop you from doing that either. However, you will be prosecuted for making false statements and defamation respectively by the people you harmed. Note what is prosecuted here: The effects of the false and perhaps even sinister nature of the statement, not the statement itself.
> Second, it's not the government limiting speech, which is all the first amendment covers.
Oh boy. I was born in a totalitarian country. It saddens me that people are happily making the same mistakes.
The dichotomy between the government and private institution you (and many libertarians) present doesn't really exist. Your rights are something that you cannot sign and trade away.
The reason why free speech exists (as a concept) is that so you, as an individual, could freely discuss wrongdoings and bad practices without fear of retribution. The idea is, ability to discuss these things leads to more efficient society. And this is true regardless whether the subject of criticism is the state, or any other institution, or any other human, even.
In your argument, somehow, you forgot the reason, why you have free speech. And so had been tricked into thinking that it is less valuable (because you don't understand its value), and you are willing to trade it away. Don't be that stupid.
> Yes, I am indeed arguing for free speech that's also free from consequences
I don't often see someone actually owning up to this view - good for you.
I'm not sure how it's possible to enforce speech that is free from consequences. Do you have a specific definition of "consequence" that you'd like to elaborate on? Anything could be a consequence (like, just hearing the speech in the first place). What is it specifically that you're trying to protect against?
> Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences
Why do people always say this? Yes, it’s true - and it’s also just flexing your power and ability to crush any speech you deem should have “consequences”.
Free speech advocates are trying to push for a consistent, fairly applied position (which is very noble but imo untenable - I’m not a free speech advocate) and often met with a response that’s essentially “you have no power and I do, so if I dislike what you’re saying I’m going to crush you”.
> Even though the entire point of having freedom of speech and association is to allow safe political discourse?
It's to reduce the need for violent revolution against the government by making such discourse that challenges the government safe from retaliation by the government. It is not to make discourse free of consequence more generally. That may in some cases be desirable on its own merits, but it is not part of the “entire point of having freedom of speech”.
That's not the consequence here.
The consequence is “other private parties might choose not to relay your speech or continue association with you, exercising their own rights to free speech and association.”
Me not allowing you to use my resources to magnify the reach of your message isn't analogous to the state subjecting you to capital punishment.
> The whole POINT of 'free speech' is that there are no consequences.
No, the whole point is that the state doesn't have their thumb on the scale, allowing ideas to succeed or fail by their ability, or not, to attract support from private actors. Legislation in which the state intervenes to prevent private consequences through the exercise of free speech are not only on their face contrary to free speech, but sabotage the operation of the marketplace of ideas.
reply