Opinion Freedom of speech doesn't equal freedom from consequences.

Allosaurus Fragillis

Allosaurus Fragillis

Blue Belt
@Blue
Joined
Oct 10, 2020
Messages
579
Reaction score
532
Sure, you have the freedom to say anything you want, but that also means you must own up to the things you say and be willing to face the consequences for the things you say. And sometimes those consequences are very negative. For example, if I came on here and said all Trump supporters should be rounded up and put in a camp chances are I would be banned or at the very least get double yellows. Or if I threatened to assassinate Biden then chances are the FBI would be breaking down my door. And with that said, you have the right to be a racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic asshole on Twitter and other social media platforms, but other people have the right to call you out on it and those social media companies have the right to suspend or ban you for it. Discuss.
 
Allosaurus Fragillis said:
Sure, you have the freedom to say anything you want, but that also means you must own up to the things you say and be willing to face the consequences for the things you say. And sometimes those consequences are very negative. For example, if I came on here and said all Trump supporters should be rounded up and put in a camp chances are I would be banned or at the very least get double yellows. Or if I threatened to assassinate Biden then chances are the FBI would be breaking down my door. And with that said, you have the right to be a racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic asshole on Twitter and other social media platforms, but other people have the right to call you out on it and those social media companies have the right to suspend or ban you for it. Discuss.
Click to expand...

I don't like how I'm only allowed to insult people my own pigment gender and sexual preferences.

I'm all for equality. Which means I should be able to call everyone a cunt regardless pigment or gender sexual preferences.



Topic touches on my loathing for " hate speech ". But there's a massive difference between a physical threat like your analogies and calling someone a name...
 
Allosaurus Fragillis said:
Sure, you have the freedom to say anything you want, but that also means you must own up to the things you say and be willing to face the consequences for the things you say. And sometimes those consequences are very negative. For example, if I came on here and said all Trump supporters should be rounded up and put in a camp chances are I would be banned or at the very least get double yellows. Or if I threatened to assassinate Biden then chances are the FBI would be breaking down my door. And with that said, you have the right to be a racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic asshole on Twitter and other social media platforms, but other people have the right to call you out on it and those social media companies have the right to suspend or ban you for it. Discuss.
Click to expand...

Surely it equals freedom from SOME consequences, though, no?

You can't call it free speech if you are throwing people in jail as a "consequence" for using their free speech, can you? (Using a threat on the life of a sitting president as an example really doesn't do it here.

Beyond this, I do find it odd that suddenly many people see free speech as nothing more than a legal issue describing the relationship between government and its interests, and citizens and their voices. Surely there's a principle of free speech that goes beyond that? A philosophy that is inclined to champion fair and free exchange beyond the scope of mere legal protections?

tenor.gif
 
The point of freedom of speech is to allow open expression without being harmed by it. Narrowing it down to "well, these massive corporations will unperson you for wrongthink BUT at least it's not the government" goes against the whole idea.
 
jeremyemilio said:
Surely it equals freedom from SOME consequences, though, no?

You can't call it free speech if you are throwing people in jail as a "consequence" for using their free speech, can you? (Using a threat on the life of a sitting president as an example really doesn't do it here.

Beyond this, I do find it odd that suddenly many people see free speech as nothing more than a legal issue describing the relationship between government and its interests, and citizens and their voices. Surely there's a principle of free speech that goes beyond that? A philosophy that is inclined to champion fair and free exchange beyond the scope of mere legal protections?

tenor.gif
Click to expand...
When did I say I wanted to throw people in jail for using their free speech? Honestly I don't even necessarily think someone should be arrested for threatening to kill the president, unless there is strong evidence that said person will actually attempt to carry out that threat and it's not just a bunch of hot air. So if anything I want more free speech in some cases. And free speech has been a legal issue forever, that's why we have lawyers who specialize in the first amendment.
 
I encourage you all to forego your rights and join the service that way you truly understand what it means to live without your civil rights.
 
Dalarna3 said:
The point of freedom of speech is to allow open expression without being harmed by it. Narrowing it down to "well, these massive corporations will unperson you for wrongthink BUT at least it's not the government" goes against the whole idea.
Click to expand...
The government not harming you because of your speech is exactly what freedom of speech is all about. Outside of the government others are allowed and should be allowed to judge you by your speech and react accordingly even if those others include big corporations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lsa
58miles said:
The government not harming you because of your speech is exactly what freedom of speech is all about. Outside of the government others are allowed and should be allowed to judge you by your speech and react accordingly even if those others include big corporations.
Click to expand...
Cool, call me when the government stops bailing out huge corporations and giving them tax breaks left and right. Or when lobbying is curtailed. Corporate power and the government are in the same bed.
 
TardStrong said:
I agree with you TS the problem is there is a double standard for people on the Left. Thev are protected

Eminem, Jimmy Kimmel, Howard Stern are the big ones
Click to expand...
Eminem, Jimmy Kimmel and Howard Stern's speech rights are more protected because they are rich and famous not because they are on the left.
 
Allosaurus Fragillis said:
When did I say I wanted to throw people in jail for using their free speech? Honestly I don't even necessarily think someone should be arrested for threatening to kill the president, unless there is strong evidence that said person will actually attempt to carry out that threat and it's not just a bunch of hot air. So if anything I want more free speech in some cases. And free speech has been a legal issue forever, that's why we have lawyers who specialize in the first amendment.
Click to expand...

You just created a strawman.no sane person would argue that Threats and incitement to violence should be protected under freedom of speech
 
Agreed. The constitution of the People's Republic of China guarantees freedom of speech. I don't understand why people like Peng Shuai expect to be able to say what they want without facing the consequences of getting disappeared because of it.
 
That's exactly what it means. Did you think it meant the physical ability to speak the words?

Short of violent threats, freedom of speech means you are supposed to be protected from harm for expressing your opinion. We all know we don't have that now because the regime doesn't believe in the rights of peasants, but that is what it means.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,238,696
Messages
55,580,655
Members
174,829
Latest member
Pastroloco1

Share this page

Back
Top