I think a lot of the debate, currently is based on abstract principles (from both sides). The practical issue, however, is that at the moment the list of things/ideas/arguments that can wreck your life is ever increasing. We're not talking here about firing someone for h//8ful utterances. Peoples' lives are being destroyed for for merely questioning the current orthodoxy. What is worrying is that it seems this is taking on a life of it's own and spinning out of control. If you are a person that is ok with this, sure, have at it. But the goal posts are shifting rapidly, and we may all (you included) wind up under the guillotine. It's embarrassing that some people here don't see this.
Free speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of your speech
-
I think a lot of the debate, currently is based on abstract principles (from both sides). The practical issue, however, is that at the moment the list of things/ideas/arguments that can wreck your life is ever increasing. We're not talking here about firing someone for h//8ful utterances. Peoples' lives are being destroyed for for merely questioning the current orthodoxy. What is worrying is that it seems this is taking on a life of it's own and spinning out of control. If you are a person that is ok with this, sure, have at it. But the goal posts are shifting rapidly, and we may all (you included) wind up under the guillotine. It's embarrassing that some people here don't see this.
This is a slippery slope argument that gets to the crux of how government regulates speech. Where are the goal posts?! Where do you draw the line?! Who's next?! It could be YOU!
That's why with very, very few exceptions, the government does not regulate speech. The government will not silence you for h//8ful utterances or for merely questioning the current orthodoxy. But at the same time, and with the same exceptions, the government will not silence others for responding to h//8ful utterances etc.
The same rules apply to everyone, and any definition of free speech that holds you can say whatever you want while others can't is not free speech at all.
-
It means that the government cannot punish you for your speech. If someone punches you because of something you say, they're not guilty of violating your free speech.
If you get canceled because of your free speech, that sucks, but again, it's not a violation of your free speech. It's a consequence of your actions.
-
It means that the government cannot punish you for your speech. If someone punches you because of something you say, they're not guilty of violating your free speech.
If you get canceled because of your free speech, that sucks, but again, it's not a violation of your free speech. It's a consequence of your actions.OP tell us who is your employer
-
You are free to say whatever you want OP, but they won't tolerate your bigotry.
And who gets to decide what is bigotry? The ones cancelling everything they don't agree with politically.
This is the core issue. But OP should tell us who employs him so that we can cancel him for his bigotry.
-
Where did this idea come from?
Of course freedom of speech means freedom from the bloody consequences what else could it mean?
If I punish you for saying something you are not free to do that. "You can say what you want, we'll just shoot you for it!"Imagine this. - I think you are lam3 so I decide to share my feelings in the next presentation you are going to make. Free speech right?
We're talking about freedom of speech. Not the freedom to insult others personally.
-
It means that the government cannot punish you for your speech. If someone punches you because of something you say, they're not guilty of violating your free speech.
If you get canceled because of your free speech, that sucks, but again, it's not a violation of your free speech. It's a consequence of your actions.If someone punches you because of something you say, they're not guilty of violating your free speech, I agree. But they are guilty of some form of assault, and they can (and should) be punished for that.
Again, the legal concept of free speech is the only one that results in everyone playing by the same set of rules. The basement dweller misunderstanding of the so-called "principle of free speech" results in a double standard: the basement dwellers can say whatever they want, but other people can't.
It's not free speech if only you can say whatever you want.
-
I think a lot of the debate, currently is based on abstract principles (from both sides). The practical issue, however, is that at the moment the list of things/ideas/arguments that can wreck your life is ever increasing. We're not talking here about firing someone for h//8ful utterances. Peoples' lives are being destroyed for for merely questioning the current orthodoxy. What is worrying is that it seems this is taking on a life of it's own and spinning out of control. If you are a person that is ok with this, sure, have at it. But the goal posts are shifting rapidly, and we may all (you included) wind up under the guillotine. It's embarrassing that some people here don't see this.
This is a slippery slope argument that gets to the crux of how government regulates speech. Where are the goal posts?! Where do you draw the line?! Who's next?! It could be YOU!
That's why with very, very few exceptions, the government does not regulate speech. The government will not silence you for h//8ful utterances or for merely questioning the current orthodoxy. But at the same time, and with the same exceptions, the government will not silence others for responding to h//8ful utterances etc.
The same rules apply to everyone, and any definition of free speech that holds you can say whatever you want while others can't is not free speech at all.This is just lazy.
-
Of course freedom of speech means freedom from the bloody consequences what else could it mean?
This is a basement dweller's misunderstanding of what freedom of speech is. "Freedom from consequence" implies that you are free to say whatever you want, while other people are not. But if other people are not free to say whatever they want in response to what you say, then we don't have freedom of speech, now do we?
Freedom of speech means that with very exceptions, you can say whatever you want, and the government can't silence you. It does not mean that other people have to agree with what you say, or tolerate it, or provide an outlet for it.
Importantly, it also does not mean that an employer must continue to employ you if the employer disagrees with your speech. Because I think all of you basement dwellers can agree, if employers were required to employ you like that, it'd be socialism, and socialism is bad, amirite?No, actually “freedom of speech” has nothing to do with the government. The first amendment, which enshrines freedom of speech in the constitution, does. Freedom of speech as a principle, has nothing to do with the government.
WTF?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
-
We're going in circles now. Your misunderstanding of freedom of speech is that you can say whatever you think is the truth, while other people can't.
Quote the post where you think anybody is saying some people can have free speech while others cannot.
It's in the OP: "If I punish you for saying something you are not free to do that." OP's example of punishment was exaggerated ("shoot you"), but OP's logic holds that any sort of consequence for saying something would mean that you are not free to do that.
But no consequences necessarily implies restrictions on other people's speech.
-
It means that the government cannot punish you for your speech. If someone punches you because of something you say, they're not guilty of violating your free speech.
If you get canceled because of your free speech, that sucks, but again, it's not a violation of your free speech. It's a consequence of your actions.This isn't quite correct. Public sector employees (e.g., working in state universities) have greater free-speech protections than do private sector employees.
-
If a firm fires an employee, or refuses to hire a person, based on some non-threatening statement the person said, is that not discrimination? Government protects certain groups from unfair labor market treatment based on race, gender, age, etc. Why does it not protect persons from mistreatment due to political opinion? This is selective protection of rights by the government. And speech is clearly not protected.
-
This is a slippery slope argument
You don't know what a slippery slope fallacy means. A slippery slope fallacy occurs when a person makes an argument about a chain of events where something small turns into something big and negative. It is a valid argument when the connections are clearly established as he has done.
Walton, Douglas (2015). "The basic slippery slope argument". Informal Logic. 35 (3): 273.
Many are losing their jobs because internet mobs are harassing employers over things that were perfectly acceptable to say 2 years ago that are now considered politically incorrect.
-
Of course freedom of speech means freedom from the bloody consequences what else could it mean?
This is a basement dweller's misunderstanding of what freedom of speech is. "Freedom from consequence" implies that you are free to say whatever you want, while other people are not. But if other people are not free to say whatever they want in response to what you say, then we don't have freedom of speech, now do we?
Freedom of speech means that with very exceptions, you can say whatever you want, and the government can't silence you. It does not mean that other people have to agree with what you say, or tolerate it, or provide an outlet for it.
Importantly, it also does not mean that an employer must continue to employ you if the employer disagrees with your speech. Because I think all of you basement dwellers can agree, if employers were required to employ you like that, it'd be socialism, and socialism is bad, amirite?No, actually “freedom of speech” has nothing to do with the government. The first amendment, which enshrines freedom of speech in the constitution, does. Freedom of speech as a principle, has nothing to do with the government.
Then the expectation of free speech in all contexts is rather silly. And lol at this meeting a "libs meme". Cons have been using this to punish country musicians long before this decade.
-
Where did this idea come from?
Of course freedom of speech means freedom from the bloody consequences what else could it mean?
If I punish you for saying something you are not free to do that. "You can say what you want, we'll just shoot you for it!"It depends on what the consequences are. For instance free speech does not leave you free of criticism for whatever your speech is.
But yes, freedom of speech does protect you from firing or worse.
-
This is a slippery slope argument
You don't know what a slippery slope fallacy means. A slippery slope fallacy occurs when a person makes an argument about a chain of events where something small turns into something big and negative. It is a valid argument when the connections are clearly established as he has done.
The connections were not "clearly established" at all:
What is worrying is that it seems this is taking on a life of it's own and spinning out of control. If you are a person that is ok with this, sure, have at it. But the goal posts are shifting rapidly, and we may all (you included) wind up under the guillotine.
"Spinning out of control," "the goal posts are shifting rapidly," "we may all wind up under the guillotine," none of these "clearly establish" anything.